Before this reaches the eye of the reader it may be that the question will have been decided. It will be useful, however, as showing that leading members of the Philadelphia delegation did not favor the change, and it may serve to direct thought should future attempts arise.

It did not seem to the Editor wise to join in the general attack on the express companies, in connection with this question. In some respects the change proposed would be to their benefit, in others to their loss, and it might be argued that express companies had as much right to "protection" as any other class. It seemed to us that the change was as much in the supposed interest of country store-keepers as of the express companies. Yet such an interest is wholly suppositious for store-keepers while forcing their neighbors to buy of them instead of sending for their ribbons to the towns by mail, would feel nettled if compelled to select from the limited stock of some neighbor's garden seeds instead of sending by mail for a greater assortment.

But it seemed to us the proper course is always to object to going backwards. No matter how mistaken the policy of a two-cent letter as against the shilling letters of our grandfathers might be, no one would think it wise to go back to that now; nor would it be wise to go back in this case. In this light we addressed the following letter to the gentlemen whose replies are appended : -

"German-town, Phila., Feb. 26, :836.

"My Dear Sir - As a representative of interests largely affected by the Wilson Bill, increasing postage on seeds and plants, I beg to enter a respectful protest against it.

"There are numerous arguments against the Bill, but the recognized principle that reforms should never go backwards surely ought to prevail here.

"Innumerable branches of business, wholly created by the present rates of postage, will be ruined by the proposed change.

"Allowing that the Government blundered by making the postage too low in the first instance, would it be justice to this large class that it should now suffer for the Government's mistake? Is there anything in the financial needs of the country to warrant this unfilial course?"

"Washington, D.C., Feb. 20,1886.

"Thomas Meehan, Esq., Germantown, Pa.

"Dear Sir - Yours of yesterday with reference to the proposed change of postage on plants, seeds and bulbs is at hand.

"I know nothing of the prospects of the bill to which you refer, and quite agree with you that if, even by a mistake, Congress by putting the postage so low as to make the business unremunera-tive to the Government, and thereby called into existence large business interests, it ought not, while the treasury is overflowing, to endanger those interests by increasing the rates of postage. What I as a layman on postage matters can do to prevent such a backward step will be done, but those who are likely to be injured by such legislation should communicate with the committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads of which my immediate colleague, Gen. H. H. Bingham, is a member. "Yours very truly, Wh. D. Kelley".

"House of Representatives U S., Washington, D.C.,Feb. 22, 1886.

"Thomas Meehan, Esq., Germantown.

"My Dear Sir - Your favor of the 18th inst. is before me and contents appreciated.

"I fully agree with you on the " Wilson Bill," shall do all in my power to defeat the measure, and I am pleased to say I find many, enough, I think, to defeat the bill, ready to join me. " Faithfully yours, "A. C. Harmer".

" Washington, D. C, February 28, 1886.

"My Dear Sir - I have your favor of recent date, and have duly noted its contents. I will resist the passage of the legislation that is proposed in the Wilson Bill, and feel confident that we can defeat it, either before the Post-office committee or in the House. It is unnecessary for me to enter into details, as I am unfortunately pressed at this time with very sad family complications. "Very truly yours, " Henry H. Bingham.

"Thomas Meehan, Esq., Germantown, Pa".