39 ftt AMERICAIV 4790Journalism The publication of the American Journalism Historians Association OCT 2 8 2005 PUBLISHED QUARTERLY BY THE ASSOCIATION Volume IV (1987), Number 1 AMERICAN JOURNALISM solicits manuscripts throughout the year. Articles are "blind" judged by three readers chosen from the Editorial Board oi AmericanJournalism for their expertise in the particular subject matter of the articles. On matters of documentation and style, American Journalism follows the MLA Handbook. Authors are asked to do the same. Four copies of a manuscript should be mailed to the following address: Wm. David Sloan Editor, AmericanJournalism School of Communication P.O. Box 1482 University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 If the author wishes to have the manuscript returned, he or she should include a self- addressed manila envelope with adequate postage. Inquiries on all matters should be directed to AmericanJournalism's editorial and business offices in the School of Communication at the University of Alabama. Copyright 1986, AmericanJournalism Historians Association AMERICAN Journalism The publication of the American Journalism Historians Association IH'BI.ISHF.D qi'ARIERLY BY 1 HE ASSOCIATION Volume IV (1987) Number 1 AMERICAN JOURNALISM EDITOR: Wm. David Sloan, Alabama ASSOCIATE EDITORS: Gary Whitby, Southern Illinois, and James D. Startt, Valparaiso ASSISTANT EDITOR: Kelly Saxton, Alabama BOOK REVIEW EDITOR: Douglas Birkhead, Utah GRAPHICS AND DESIGN EDITOR: Sharon M. W. Bass, Kansas EDITORIAL BOARD Dave Anderson, Norlfirrn Colorado; Douglas A. Anderson, Arizona Stale; Edd Applegaie, Middle Tennessee Stale; Donald Avery, Southern Mississippi; Anantha Babbili, Texas Christian; Warren F.. liarnard, Indiana State; Ralph D. Barney, Hri^hani Youti^; Maurine Beasley, Maryland, |ohn Behrens, Utica of Syracuse; Sherilyn (1. Bennion, Humboldt Stale; Dave Berkman, li'/sronsin Milwaukee; Elaine Hrosiak Berland; Margaret A. Blanihard, North Carolina; James Bow; [ohn (]. Bromley, Northern (Colorado; |ames A. Brown, Alabama; Pamela A. Brown, Rider; Mi( hael Buehholz, Texas A &. M; (jary Burns, Missouri; Douglas .S. (Campbell, Lock Haven. I.uey .Shelion C^aswell, Ohio State; Ed Caudill, Tennessee; E. Cul[)ep[)er CMark, Alabama, liirmingham; Linda C^obb-Reiley, Denver; Earl I.. Ojnn, Rail State; Ted C^onover, Nevada-Reno; Anne (>)0[)er. Ohio; Alfred E. Cornebise, Northern Colorado; Patrick Daley, Alaska- hairhanks; Robert W. Davenport, Nevada-Las Vef^as; Harold Davis, Georgia Slate; ]nhu De Mott, Memphis Stale; Wallace B. Eberhard, Georgia; Kathleen Endres, Bowling Green; Ralph Engelnian, Long Island; R. Ferrell Ervin, Pepperdine; Donald Fishman. Boston (College; Robert S. Fortner, George Washington; Donald D. (iodfrey. Southern Utah Stale, Irvin Cioldrnan, Windsor; Thelma (iorham, Florida A & M; David M. Guerra, Arkansas- Little Rock; DennieHall, Central (Okla) Stale; John H. Hanson, 7Vm/;/e; Jeff Henderson, Central Arkansas; Jake Hightoii. Nevado-Iieno; William Flunt/icker; Ernest C. Hynds, Georgia; Phillip Jeter, Mississippi; V. Tlorida A & M; Myron K. Jordan, Washington; Arthur J. Kaul, Southern Samuel Kennedy III. Syracuse; Lauren Kessler, Oregon; .Sidney Kobre; Peggy Jean Kreshel, Georgia; Frank Krompak, Toledo; PhilijiJ. Lane, Calijornia Slate, Fresno, Bob Lawrence, New Mexico; Deryl R. Learning, Marshall; Ri< hard Lent/, Arizona State; Alfred L. Lorenz, Loyola of the South; C;harles H. Marler, Abilene (lex ) Christian; Claudia Martino, Wichita Slate; Clarolyn Marvin, I'ennslyvania; William MtKeen, Florida; Jo.seph P. M( Kerns, Southern Illinois, William McReynolds, Colorado- Boulder; Peter Mellini, Sonoma Stale; William Ray Mofield, Murray Stale; Roy L. .Moore, Kentucky; Kenneth B. Muir, Radford; Sharon M. Murphy, Marquette; Michael Murray, Missouri-St . Louis; Jack A. Nelson, Brigham Young; F.dward A. Nickerson, Delaware; .Marvin Olasky, 'I'exas; John Pauly, Tulsa; Darwin Payne, Southern Melhodist; Robert Ci. Picard, Louisiana Stale; Stephen Ponder, Oregon; Alf Pralte, Brigham Young; iiarbara Straus Reed, Rutgers; Sam (i. Riley, Virginia Tech; Jan C. Robbins, Northern Iowa; I'. F. Roberson, Southern, Naiu y L. Roberts, Minnesota; Bruce Roche, Alabama; Richard Scheidenhelm; Ihomas A. S( hwarlz, Ohio State; Arthur Seeger, Wisconsin-Milwaukee; Michael Sheret, /.oe Smith, Snorgrass, Florida &. M; D. Nebraska-Omaha; Marquette; J. William A Robert S[)elitiian, Southern Illinois; Harlan Stensaas, Mercer; Fred R. Stewart, Northern I urner, Marshall; Pat Washburn, Arizona, James E. Swart/, California Stale Futlerton; Ralph J. Ohio; Reg Westmoreland, North Texas Slate; I'hyllis Zagano AMERK;AN journalism (ISSN 0882 1127) Editorial and Business Offices: School Oomnnmic aiion, P () Box 1-182, UnivcTsily of Alabama, Fuse aloosa, AL lifj-IS? AMERICAN Journalism Volume IV (1987) Number 1 5 The Growing Interaction of the Federal Bureaucracy and the Press: The Case of a Postal Rule, 1879-1917 By Richard B. Kielbowicz 19 James Fenimore Cooper and the Law of Libel in New York By Richard Scheidenhelm 30 The Exchange System and the Development of American Politics in the 1 820s By Robert K. Stewart 43 Book Reviews Knudson, Bolivia: Press and Revolution, 1932-1964 Huey, Rebel With a Cause: P.D. East, Southern Liberalism, and the Civil Rights Movement, 1953-1971 Fenby, The International News Services (A Twentieth Century Fund Report) Doyle, Letters to the Press Altick, Deadly Encounters: Two Victorian Sensations Allen, Satire & Society in Wilhelmine Germany: Kladderadtsch and Simplicissimus, 18901914 Savory and Marks, The Smiling Muse: Victoriana in the Comic Press The Growing Interaction of the Federal Bureaucracy and the Press: The Case of a Postal Rule, 1879-1917 By Richard B. Kielbowicz Press-government relations entered a new phase in the last quarter of the nineteenth century as hoth institutions adapted to the rise of the modern industrial state. Whereas the press once had been chiefly concerned with the actions of politicians holding federal office, publishers now felt the growing presence of professional administrators. To be sure, politicians in Congress and Executive departments continued to play an important part in shaping laws affecting the press. But the federal bureaucracy increasingly decided issues vital lo all industries, including the business of publishing. Ad- ministrators not onlv implemented laws, which required an ever larger range of discretion, but thev also used their expertise to influence the policymaking process in Congress.' At the same time, publishers directed more of their lobbying efforts toward influencing administrators. Of all the federal departments and agencies routinely interacting with the press, none was more important than the post office. The post office had, of course, performed services central to the operations of the press since colonial times. ^ But as the department and the publishing industry increased in size and complexity during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, post office personnel enjoved greater latitude to administer policies fashioned by Congress. Moreover. Congress relied on the guidance of postal administrators during the policymaking process; indeed, some congressional actions simply reified in law what the post office, exercising its administrative discretion, had been doing in practice.^ The post office moved forthrightly to implement its construction of a law when the established, influential segments of the publishing industrv supported its efforts. The changing nature of press-government relations can be illustrated by tracing the origins, administrative elaboration, and application of a single rule. In 1879 Congress created the modern second-class mail category. Among several requirements for admission to the second-class mail was the stipulation that a publication had to have a legitimate list of paid subscribers. The paid subscriber rule, which received little attention when Congress RICHARD B. KIELBOWICZ (Ph.D., Minnesota) is an assistant professor in the School of Communications at the University of Washington, Seattle. The research for this article was conducted under contract to the U.S. Postal Rate Commission and presented in a paper to it, but the views expressed are not necessarily those of the Commission, any Commissioner, or the Commission staff. The author would like to thank Linda Lawson, Ph.D. candidate, School of Communications, University of Washington, for her assistance. ^ American Journalism IV (1987): 1 created it in 1879, became a linchpin in the post office's construction and application of postal laws in the ensuing decades. By 1917, the post office had fully fleshed out the rule, and it has changed little since despite recent challenges to its constitutionality.'' The history of the paid subscriber rule, in short, reveals the growing autonomy of the federal bureaucracy in one realm of vital importance to the press. Origins and Initial Interpretation of the Rule Congress laid the statutory foundation for the paid subscriber rule in 1879 when it created the four categories of mail still used today. Although the rule was largely synthesized from earlier statutes, it also embodied principles developed in the administrative decisions of the post office.^ To be eligible for second-class rates, publications had to meet four con- ditions. The first three were technical: Publications had to be regularly issued at least four times a year from a known office of publication and printed on sheets without substantial binding. More important was the fourth condition,