It is therefore respectfully submitted that any comprehensive consideration of the express service field in the United States can point only in one direction--toward the consolidation of the express service of the United States with the Postal System of the United States, under the control and management of the Post Office Department. _METHODS OF ESTABLISHING A GOVERNMENT POSTAL EXPRESS_ Many studies advocating Government ownership and management of public utilities find it necessary to hitch their program to one definite mode of procedure. In the case of the express service, however, no such necessity exists. Several modes of procedure are open, and if one of them seems preferable, none of them is impossible, inadequate or inefficient. The most desirable method now available of substituting a Government postal express for our express companies would seem to be a legal and constitutional confiscation of their property and rights, with adequate compensation. The adequacy of the compensation would naturally entail much discussion--on the one side would stand those insisting that the Government pay for only the contemporaneous value of the physical property taken over; and on the other side would stand those insisting that the contracts with the railroads, good will, and other intangible assets of the express companies possess true value despite their intangible nature and should accordingly be purchased. Supporting the first group would be the policy of the present Government which, as we shall see, has placed the capital of the express combination temporarily handling the express business of the country at $30,000,000, or approximately the value of the actual physical property represented by that combination. Supporting the second group is the Interstate Commerce Commission, through its representative, Franklin K. Lane, in its 1912 decision in the matter of the express rates. A third method presents itself, but its adoption could be considered only as deplorable, even as reprehensible--namely, purchase of the express companies at their paper valuation. As we have seen, the capitalization of the express companies bears no relation to the value of their property, and chiefly represents, not money invested, but profits accumulated. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court of the United States some years ago decided that capitalized excess profits may not be used as a basis of computing fair rates of dividends upon capital as against the state. Possibly Congress might find it wise to settle the whole problem in any bill providing for Government acquisition by abiding in the judgment of the Interstate Commerce Commission, leaving the Government or the express companies, or both, the right to appeal to the Supreme Court if dissatisfied.