Taking his estimate of saving to each family along a route and allowing for six families for each mile, three on each side of the road, and there being 1,037,259 miles of rural delivery roads in the United States, it can be seen what an aggregate wonderful saving this has made, not counting the property, personal and educational value of such a service to the people. It will be seen that by this showing that the saving to the patrons of 1 mile of rural delivery service ($1,350) will more than pay what it costs the Government for a 24-mile route at a rate of $1,200 per annum. The Per Capita Cost in Rural Delivery The per capita cost in the Rural Delivery Service has been a matter of considerable interest to those who are following the progress and extension of this branch of the public service. The great advance which has been made in this service and the still greater extent to which it is proposed to extend it, embracing ultimately all patrons wherever located, naturally raises the question of cost as a whole and the cost per patron. Charles Emory Smith, Postmaster General in 1900, who was one of the staunch friends of rural delivery in its early days, said the gross cost could be estimated by three methods, cost per square mile, cost per capita, and cost per county. Adhering to the subject in hand it may be stated that he found the cost per capita at that time to be 92.7 serving a population of about 2,000,000 people on something less than 3,000 routes. There is no reliable data covering the period to 1910 upon this subject, but taking an estimate based upon close calculation, it is found that notwithstanding the tremendous growth of this service during that time reaching in 1910 over 41,000 routes and accommodating over 20,000,000 patrons, the cost per capita had arisen to only 1.797, and now with nearly 43,000 routes and serving over 26,000,000 people as patrons, the cost per capita is but 1.966. No answer as to cost considering the known value of such service could be illustrated more forcibly than by the figures here presented. If the undeniable benefits of rural service to the people can be given with ever-increasing efficiency at a cost no greater than that, it can be reasonably assumed that the people who live upon the farms of the United States and endure the hardships of such life with its many attendant inconveniences are certainly entitled to their share of public benefit, especially when as shown, the cost is so small compared to the inmeasurable advantages afforded.