From Part and Parcel to Parcel Post

SEELEY LAKE - Though writing teachers disapprove of using two words when one conveys the meaning satisfactorily, the English language is full of doublet phrases: safe and sound; each and every; null and void; bits and pieces; rack and ruin; part and parcel. Each word of the phrase means the same thing.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), “part,” meaning a piece of a whole, came into use in the 11th century. “Parcel,” meaning a piece of a whole, came into usage in the 14th century. The two were then yoked together, most often in legal treatises, presumably to cover all eventualities.

The OED references a 1535 Act (27) under Henry VIII: “This present Act, and every part and parcel thereof, shall extend….”

Another example comes from a 1585 tract citing Bible verses that expound on the true fear of God: “This is the description of that fear, which is so commended and commanded in every part and parcel of God’s word.”

The word “parcel” also took on other meanings, including becoming a synonym for package. British English continue to prefer the word parcel, while American-raised English speakers generally use package. Nevertheless, the United States Post Office used the term “Parcel Post” when it inaugurated its U.S. package delivery service in 1913.

In the beginning there was little clarification of what constituted a parcel/package. That led to some unusual items being sent through the mail.

College students quickly figured out it was cheaper to mail their dirty laundry home than to pay to have their clothes washed professionally.

Smithsonian National Postal Museum houses one of the reusable laundry mailing boxes. Made of lightweight metal, it was held closed with a strap and buckle. There was a small metal frame on the lid to protect the address label, which could be removed easily so a new address could be inserted for the return trip.

In 1924 the Wellesley, Mass., post office estimated that one-third of the 252 packages arriving in the first two weeks of the school term consisted of laundry cases. The practice continued into the 1960s. Often other items such as baked goods and candy were added when space permitted, making it a doubly sweet deal for students.

Even stranger than laundry packages, there are instances of small children being mailed by parcel post. In 1914 Mr. and Mrs. Pierstoff of Grangeville, Idaho, wanted to send their four-year-old daughter Mary to visit her grandparents in Lewiston, Idaho. Finding train fare too expensive and seeing no specific provision against sending a person through the new Parcel Post system, they decided to send Mary by mail. At 48½ pounds, the child fell just under the 50-pound package weight limit. Postage stamps amounting to 53-cents were attached to Mary’s coat. According to the records in the National Postal Museum, Mary traveled in the train’s mail compartment and was delivered to her grandparents’ by the mail clerk on duty.

Understandably, the Parcel Post Service soon set stricter limitations on what could and could not be mailed. Children were firmly placed on the “not” list. However, a few enterprising people still found ways to stretch the boundaries of the system.

In 1916, William Coltharp of Vernal, Utah, selected bricks for the new bank he intended to build. The problem was the bricks were made in Salt Lake City and the freight charges to have them hauled to Vernal were prohibitive. So Coltharp decided to take advantage of the considerably less expensive parcel post rates.

Coltharp had the 80,000 bricks packed in multiple crates, each weighing just under 50 pounds. Though the distance from Salt Lake City to Vernal was only 125 miles, the bricks had to be sent to Mack, Colo., via the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad, then to Watson, Colo., on a narrow gauge railroad and the last 65 miles to Vernal by freight wagon – total route: 400 miles. The bank was built and nicknamed The Postal Bank by some of the town residents.

That stunt prompted Parcel Post to set a 200-pound per day limit on items. As Postmaster General Burleson explained, “It is not the intent of the United States Postal Service that buildings be shipped through the mail.”