Computer Systems: Digital Design, Fundamentals

of Computer Architecture and ARM Assembly

Language 2nd Edition Ata Elahi pdf download

https://ebookmeta.com/product/computer-systems-digital-design-
fundamentals-of-computer-architecture-and-arm-assembly-
language-2nd-edition-ata-elahi/

Download more ebook from https://ebookmeta.com

We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit ebookmeta.com
to discover even more!

Computer Systems: Digital Design, Fundamentals of

Computer Architecture and ARM Assembly Language 2nd
Edition Ata Elahi

https://ebookmeta.com/product/computer-systems-digital-design-
fundamentals-of-computer-architecture-and-arm-assembly-
language-2nd-edition-ata-elahi/

Digital Design and Computer Architecture RISC V Edition

Sarah Harris

https://ebookmeta.com/product/digital-design-and-computer-
architecture-risc-v-edition-sarah-harris/

Design and Applications of Emerging Computer Systems

1st Edition Weiqiang Liu

https://ebookmeta.com/product/design-and-applications-of-
emerging-computer-systems-1st-edition-weiqiang-liu/

Blood Moon 2nd Edition Jessica Marting

https://ebookmeta.com/product/blood-moon-2nd-edition-jessica-
marting/
Mathematics via Problems Part 2 Geometry 1st Edition
Alexey A. Zaslavsky

https://ebookmeta.com/product/mathematics-via-problems-
part-2-geometry-1st-edition-alexey-a-zaslavsky/

The Sjogren's Book 5th Edition Daniel Jeffrey Wallace

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-sjogrens-book-5th-edition-
daniel-jeffrey-wallace/

What is Sexual Capital 1st Edition Dana Kaplan

https://ebookmeta.com/product/what-is-sexual-capital-1st-edition-
dana-kaplan/

Fifty Key Figures in LatinX and Latin American Theatre

1st Edition Paola S. Hernández (Editor)

https://ebookmeta.com/product/fifty-key-figures-in-latinx-and-
latin-american-theatre-1st-edition-paola-s-hernandez-editor/

Dragons of Mount Teres 04.0 - In a Dragon's Soul 1st

Edition Riley Storm

https://ebookmeta.com/product/dragons-of-mount-teres-04-0-in-a-
dragons-soul-1st-edition-riley-storm/
The Worth of a Penny 1st Edition Jess B Moore

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-worth-of-a-penny-1st-edition-
jess-b-moore/
Computer Systems
Ata Elahi

Computer Systems
Digital Design, Fundamentals of Computer
Architecture and ARM Assembly Language

Second Edition
Ata Elahi
Southern Connecticut State University
New Haven, CT, USA

ISBN 978-3-030-93448-4 ISBN 978-3-030-93449-1 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93449-1

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland
AG 2018, 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by
similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
This book is dedicated to Sara, Shabnam, and
Aria.
Preface

This textbook is the result of my experiences teaching computer systems at the

Computer Science Department at Southern Connecticut State University since 1986.
The book is divided into three sections: Digital Design, Introduction to Computer
Architecture and Memory, and ARM Architecture and Assembly Language. The
Digital Design section includes a laboratory manual with 15 experiments using
Logisim software to enforce important concepts. The ARM Architecture and Assem-
bly Language section includes several examples of assembly language programs
using Keil μVision 5 development tools.

Intended Audience

This book is written primarily for a one-semester course as an introduction to

computer hardware and assembly language for students majoring in Computer
Science, Information Systems, and Engineering Technology.

Changes in the Second Edition

The expansion of Chap. 1 by adding history of computer and Types of Computers.
Expanded Chap. 6 “Introduction to Computer Architecture” by adding Computer
Abstraction Layers and CPU Instruction Execution Steps. The most revision done on
ARM Architecture and Assembly Language by incorporating Keil μvision5,
reordering Chaps. 9 and 10, and adding Chap. 11 “C Bitwise and Control Structures
used for Programming with C and ARM Assembly Language.”

Organization

The material of this book is presented in such a way that no special background is
required to understand the topics.

vii
viii Preface

Chapter 1–Signals and Number Systems: Analog Signal, Digital Signal, Binary
Numbers, Addition and Subtraction of binary numbers, IEEE 754 Floating Point
representations, ASCII, Unicode, Serial Transmission, and Parallel Transmission
Chapter 2–Boolean Logics and Logic Gates: Boolean Logics, Boolean Algebra
Theorems, Logic Gates, Integrated Circuit (IC), Boolean Function, Truth Table of a
function and using Boolean Theorems to simplify Boolean Functions
Chapter 3–Minterms, Maxterms, Karnaugh Map (K-Map) and Universal Gates:
Minterms, Maxterms, Karnaugh Map (K-Map) to simplify Boolean Functions,
Don’t Care Conditions and Universal Gates
Chapter 4–Combinational Logic: Analysis of Combination Logic, Design of
Combinational Logic, Decoder, Encoder, Multiplexer, Half Adder, Full Adder,
Binary Adder, Binary Subtractor, Designing Arithmetic Logic Unit (ALU), and
BCD to Seven Segment Decoder
Chapter 5–Synchronous Sequential Logic: Sequential Logic such as S-R Latch,
D-Flip Flop, J-K Flip Flop, T-Flip Flop, Register, Shift Register, Analysis of
Sequential Logic, State Diagram, State Table, Flip Flop Excitation Table, and
Designing Counter
Chapter 6–Introduction to Computer Architecture: Components of a Microcom-
puter, CPU Technology, CPU Architecture, Instruction Execution, Pipelining, PCI,
PCI Express, USB, and HDMI
Chapter 7–Memory: Memory including RAM, SRAM, DISK, SSD, Memory
Hierarchy, Cache Memory, Cache Memory Mapping Methods, Virtual Memory,
Page Table, and the memory organization of a computer
Chapter 8– Assembly Language and ARM Instructions Part I: ARM Processor
Architecture, and ARM Instruction Set such as Data Processing, Shift, Rotate,
Unconditional Instructions and Conditional Instructions, Stack Operation, Branch,
Multiply Instructions, and several examples of converting HLL to Assembly
Language.
Chapter 9–ARM Assembly Language Programming Using Keil Development
Tools: Covers how to use Keil development software for writing assembly language
using ARM Instructions, Compiling Assembly Language, and Debugging
Chapter 10–ARM Instructions Part II and Instruction Formats: This chapter is the
continuation of Chap. 8 which covers Load and Store Instructions, Pseudo Instruc-
tions, ARM Addressing Mode, and Instruction formats.
Chapter 11–C Bitwise and Control Structures Used for Programming with C and
ARM Assembly Language
Instruction Resources: The instruction resources contain
• 15 Laboratory experiments using Logisim.
• Solutions to the problems of each chapter.
• Power points of each chapter

New Haven, CT, USA Ata Elahi

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my special thanks to Professor Lancor Chairman of Com-

puter Science Department at Southern Connecticut State University for her support
as well as Professor Herv Podnar for his guidance.
I wish to acknowledge and thank Ms. Mary E. James, Senior Editor in Applied
Sciences and her assistant, Ms. Zoe Kennedy, for their support.
My special thanks to Eric Barbin, Alex Cushman, Marc Gajdosik, Nickolas
Santini, Nicholas Bittar, Omar Abid, and Alireza Ghods for their help in developing
the manuscript. Finally, I would like to thank the students of CSC 207 Computer
Systems of Spring 2020.

ix
Contents

1 Signals and Number Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.1 CPU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Historical Development of the Computer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Hardware and Software Components of a Computer . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4 Types of Computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.5 Analog Signals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.5.1 Characteristics of an Analog Signal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.6 Digital Signals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.7 Number System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.7.1 Converting from Binary to Decimal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.7.2 Converting from Decimal Integer to Binary . . . . . . . . . 10
1.7.3 Converting Decimal Fraction to Binary . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.7.4 Converting from Hex to Binary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.7.5 Binary Addition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.8 Complement and Two’s Complement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.8.1 Subtraction of Unsigned Number Using Two’s
Complement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.9 Unsigned, Signed Magnitude, and Signed Two’s Complement
Binary Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.9.1 Unsigned Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.9.2 Signed Magnitude Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.9.3 Signed Two’s Complement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.10 Binary Addition Using Signed Two’s Complement . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.11 Floating Point Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.11.1 Single and Double Precision Representations
of Floating Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.12 Binary-Coded Decimal (BCD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.13 Coding Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.13.1 ASCII Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

xi
xii Contents

1.13.2 Universal Code or Unicode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

1.14 Parity Bit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1.14.1 Even Parity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.14.2 Odd Parity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.15 Clock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.16 Transmission Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.16.1 Asynchronous Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.16.2 Synchronous Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.17 Transmission Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.17.1 Serial Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1.17.2 Parallel Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1.18 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2 Boolean Logics and Logic Gates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.2 Boolean Logics and Logic Gates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.2.1 AND Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.2.2 OR Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.2.3 NOT Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.2.4 NAND Gate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.2.5 NOR Gate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.2.6 Exclusive OR Gate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.2.7 Exclusive NOR Gate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.2.8 Tri-State Device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.2.9 Multiple Inputs Logic Gates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.3 Integrated Circuit (IC) Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.3.1 Small-Scale Integration (SSI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.3.2 Integrated Circuit Pins Numbering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.3.3 Medium-Scale Integration (MSI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.3.4 Large-Scale Integration (LSI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.3.5 Very-Large-Scale Integration (VLSI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.4 Boolean Algebra Theorems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.4.1 Distributive Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2.4.2 De Morgan’s Theorem I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.4.3 De Morgan’s Theorem II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.4.4 Commutative Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.4.5 Associative Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.4.6 More Theorems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.5 Boolean Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.5.1 Complement of a Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Contents xiii

3 Minterms, Maxterms, Karnaugh Map (K-Map), and Universal

Gates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.2 Minterms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.2.1 Application of Minterms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.2.2 Three-Variable Minterms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.3 Maxterms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.4 Karnaugh Map (K-Map) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.4.1 Three-Variable Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.4.2 Four-Variable K-Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.5 Sum of Products (SOP) and Product of Sums (POS) . . . . . . . . . 62
3.6 Don’t Care Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.7 Universal Gates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3.7.1 Using NAND Gates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3.7.2 Using NOR Gates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3.7.3 Implementation of Logic Functions Using NAND
Gates or NOR Gates Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.7.4 Using NAND Gates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.7.5 Using NOR Gates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.8 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4 Combinational Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.2 Analysis of Combinational Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.3 Design of Combinational Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.3.1 Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.4 Decoder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.4.1 Implementing a Function Using a Decoder . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.5 Encoder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.6 Multiplexer (MUX) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.6.1 Designing Large Multiplexer Using Smaller
Multiplexers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.6.2 Implementing Functions Using Multiplexer . . . . . . . . . 86
4.7 Half Adder, Full Adder, Binary Adder, and Subtractor . . . . . . . 88
4.7.1 Full Adder (FA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
4.7.2 4-Bit Binary Adder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.7.3 Subtractor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.8 ALU (Arithmetic Logic Unit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.9 Seven-Segment Display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.10 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
xiv Contents

5 Synchronous Sequential Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.2 S-R Latch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.2.1 S-R Latch Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.3 D Flip-Flop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.4 J-K Flip-Flop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
5.5 T Flip-Flop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5.6 Register . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5.6.1 Shift Register . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.6.2 Barrel Shifter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.7 Frequency Divider Using J-K Flip-Flop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
5.8 Analysis of Sequential Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
5.9 State Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
5.9.1 D Flip-Flop State Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
5.10 Flip-Flop Excitation Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
5.10.1 D Flip-Flop Excitation Table. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
5.10.2 Excitation Table Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
5.10.3 J-K Flip-Flop Excitation Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
5.10.4 T Flip-Flop Excitation Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
5.11 Counter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
5.12 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
6 Introduction to Computer Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
6.1.1 Abstract Representation of Computer Architecture . . . . 121
6.2 Components of a Microcomputer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
6.2.1 Central Processing Unit (CPU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
6.2.2 CPU Buses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
6.2.3 Memory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
6.2.4 Serial Input/Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
6.2.5 Direct Memory Access (DMA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
6.2.6 Programmable I/O Interrupt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
6.2.7 32-Bit Versus 64-Bit CPU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
6.3 CPU Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
6.3.1 CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer) . . . . . . . . . . 127
6.3.2 RISC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
6.4 CPU Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
6.4.1 Von Neumann Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
6.4.2 Harvard Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
6.5 Intel Microprocessor Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
6.5.1 Upward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
6.6 Multicore Processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
6.7 CPU Instruction Execution Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
6.7.1 Pipelining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Contents xv

6.8 Disk Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

6.9 Microcomputer Bus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
6.9.1 ISA Bus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
6.9.2 Microchannel Architecture Bus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
6.9.3 EISA Bus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
6.9.4 VESA Bus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
6.9.5 PCI Bus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
6.9.6 Universal Serial BUS (USB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
6.9.7 USB Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
6.9.8 PCI Express Bus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
6.10 FireWire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
6.10.1 HDMI (High-Definition Multimedia Interface) . . . . . . . 141
6.11 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Review Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
7 Memory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
7.2 Memory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
7.2.1 RAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
7.2.2 DRAM Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
7.2.3 ROM (Read-Only Memory) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
7.2.4 Memory Access Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
7.3 Hard Disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
7.3.1 Disk Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
7.3.2 Cluster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
7.3.3 Disk File System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
7.4 Solid-State Drive (SSD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
7.5 Memory Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
7.5.1 Cache Memory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
7.5.2 Cache Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
7.5.3 Cache Memory Mapping Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
7.5.4 Direct Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
7.5.5 Set Associative Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
7.5.6 Replacement Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
7.5.7 Fully Associative Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
7.5.8 Cache Update Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
7.5.9 Effective Access Time (EAT) of Memory . . . . . . . . . . 164
7.5.10 Virtual Memory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
7.5.11 Memory Organization of a Computer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Questions and Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
8 Assembly Language and ARM Instructions Part I . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
8.2 Instruction Set Architecture (ISA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
xvi Contents

8.2.1 Classification of Instruction Based on Number of

Operands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
8.3 ARM Processor Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
8.3.1 Instruction Decoder and Logic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
8.3.2 Address Register . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
8.3.3 Address Increment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
8.3.4 Register Bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
8.3.5 Barrel Shifter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
8.3.6 ALU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
8.3.7 Write Data Register . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
8.3.8 Read Data Register . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
8.3.9 ARM Operation Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
8.4 ARM Registers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
8.4.1 Current Program Status Register (CPSR) . . . . . . . . . . . 180
8.4.2 Flag Bits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
8.4.3 Control Bits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
8.5 ARM Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
8.5.1 Data Processing Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
8.5.2 Compare and Test Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
8.5.3 Register Swap Instructions (MOV and MVN) . . . . . . . 185
8.5.4 Shift and Rotate Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
8.5.5 ARM Unconditional Instructions and Conditional
Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
8.6 Stack Operation and Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
8.7 Branch (B) and Branch with Link Instruction (BL) . . . . . . . . . . 191
8.8 Multiply (MUL) and Multiply-Accumulate (MLA)
Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
8.9 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Problems and Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
9 ARM Assembly Language Programming Using Keil
Development Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
9.2 Keil Development Tools for ARM Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
9.2.1 Assembling a Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
9.2.2 Running the Debugger/Simulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
9.3 Program Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
9.4 Programming Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
9.4.1 CASE Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
9.4.2 Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
9.5 Data Representation and Memory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
9.6 Directives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
9.6.1 Data Directive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
9.7 Memory in μVision v5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
9.8 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Questions and Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
Contents xvii

10 ARM Instructions Part II and Instruction Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

10.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
10.2 ARM Data Transfer Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
10.2.1 ARM Pseudo Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
10.2.2 Store Instructions (STR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
10.3 ARM Addressing Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
10.3.1 Immediate Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
10.3.2 Pre-indexed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
10.3.3 Pre-indexed with Write Back . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
10.3.4 Post-index Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
10.4 Swap Memory and Register (SWAP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
10.5 Storing Data Using Keil μVision 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
10.6 Bits Field Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
10.7 ARM Instruction Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
10.7.1 ARM Data Processing Instruction Format . . . . . . . . . . 221
10.7.2 B and BL Instruction Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
10.7.3 Multiply Instruction Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
10.7.4 Data Transfer Instructions (LDRB, LDR, STRB,
and STR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
10.7.5 Data Transfer Half Word and Signed Number
(LDRH, STRH, LDRSB, LDRSH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
10.7.6 Swap Memory and Register (SWAP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
10.8 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
11 Bitwise and Control Structures Used for Programming
with C and ARM Assembly Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
11.1.1 C Bitwise Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
11.2 Control Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
11.2.1 If-Then Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
11.2.2 If-Then-Else Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
11.2.3 While Loop Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
11.2.4 For Loop Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
11.2.5 Switch Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
11.3 ARM Memory Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
11.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
11.4 Local and Global Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
11.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
Discovering Diverse Content Through
Random Scribd Documents
from making regular trips over established post routes,
or from engaging in the business of carrying such
parcels for hire.”
That is what the court says—and what the court
says goes. Here is what the present Attorney General
of the United States says—and what the Attorney
General says does not go. The Receivers’ and Shippers’
Association of Cincinnati asked the Attorney General to
join in Mr. Williams’ suit, which the Attorney General
declined to do for this reason:
“The department has made a very complete study of
the proposition and agrees with Mr. Williams upon the
law, except as to the one point, namely, that there has
been an administrative construction against the
proposition for over forty years, and the chances are
that a suit will be defeated on that ground.”
In other words while the Attorney General believes
the express companies have been and are violating the
law, the postoffice department, for forty years, has let
them do it, and it seems useless to try to enforce the
law.
Here, then, is the absurd situation with regard to
packets into which the express companies have forced
the United States government:
If a packet contains tea, and a mail carrier steals
some of it, it is a packet without doubt, and the mail
carrier is sent to prison.
If an express company carries a packet of tea, the
packet is not a packet, because a packet is only a
packet of letters.
But a mail carrier will find out rather quickly,
whether a packet of tea weighing less than four
pounds, is a packet or not, if he carry the packet for
 his own profit instead of turning over to the
government the amount of the postage. Let the fact
become known to the government, and he will be
arrested as quickly as an officer can reach him.
Now: Is or is not this juggling with the law? If it is
not juggling with the law, what, in your opinion, would
be juggling with the law? If the foregoing decisions
sound like good law to you, perhaps you ought to be
upon the federal bench. You might shine as a judge.
You don’t shine as a voter. You think, but you don’t
act. You don’t put your thought behind your ballot. You
let somebody else put his thought behind your ballot.

That is pretty plain talk—talk which should do us readers some

good. It should, at least, enlighten us as to these facts.
First: The express companies have been criminally trenching upon
and into the service of the Postoffice Department for forty years or
more—have been raiding what were originally intended to be the
legitimate and legally protected revenues of that department.
Second: Such raidings have been winked at by our federal
legislators and condoned, and the raiders exonerated by juridic
opinions which were so bald, bare, brazen and cheap that they
would make a practiced confidence or get-rich-quick man blush.
I intended to write further here about this raid of the express
companies on postal revenues, but have concluded to defer much of
what I intended to say in handling this phase of our general subject
to the closing division of this volume—the parcels post. One reason
for doing so is that today it is not the express companies which
command and direct the raidings that express business is making,
and for some years has made, into what rightly and legally should
be the field of postal revenue gathering. Twenty years ago, a trifle
more or less, when John Wanamaker was Postmaster General, he
stated to a committee or delegation calling on him, that there were
four insuperable objections to the establishment of a parcels post at
that time. He named the four objections. They were, if I remember
rightly, “The Adams Express Company, the American Express
Company, the Wells-Fargo Express Company and the United States
Express Company.” It may be he named the Southern or some other
express company instead of the United States Express Company. I
cannot remember. At any rate he named four express companies as
the “insuperable objections” to the establishment of a parcels post.
Well, he was right for the period in which he spoke. But twenty
years is a long time in a swift, governmentally aided get-rich-quick
age or country like ours. There are some dozen or more express
companies now—a dozen or more on paper—quasi-express
companies.
The railroad companies and railroad officials control the express
companies and the express business of this country today.
A departmental report of the government showed, as stated in the
Saturday Evening Post of May 27, 1911, “that the four principal
express companies have thirty-seven directors, of whom thirty-two
are residents of New York, two are residents of Chicago and three of
San Francisco. These express directors are also directors in twenty-
five of the leading railroad systems of the United States.”
So, today, if Mr. Wanamaker were inclined to do so, he would
probably revise his statement of twenty or more years ago. He
would probably say that the railroads of this country stood as the
insuperable objection or obstruction to the establishment and
operation of an efficient, cheap and serviceable parcels post—the
failure or neglect to do which is running one of the greatest raids
into postal revenues this or any other nation has ever known.
Mr. Albert W. Atwood in writing to this point under the general
caption “The Great Express Companies,” in the American Magazine,
February, 1911, issue, says:

Perhaps you have thought of all this before, but do

you also know that the six largest express companies
are among our greatest bankers? With them, in one
year, the public has deposited $352,590,814 and their
transactions in money orders, travelers’ checks, letters
of credit and bills of exchange rival those of the most
powerful banks. This business, unlike any other form
of banking is under no governmental jurisdiction and
goes untaxed. It is made possible only by using the
machinery of the regular banks, although to these the
express companies pay no revenue. In the money-
order line, express companies compete with the
postoffice and do about one-third as much business as
the government. The American Express alone has
handled nearly 17,000,000 money orders in one year.
That the public has confidence in the safety of the
express companies as banks admits of no doubt, and it
has been credibly reported that in the panic of 1907
money was withdrawn from banks, which the people
did not trust, and invested in express money orders.
Transportation in a multitude of forms and branch
banking do not comprise the sum total of express
activities. The surplus funds of these huge institutions
have grown large enough to require constant
investment, and the express companies form a close
second to the savings banks and insurance companies
as the most dependable, regular and important class
of investors in railroad securities. Diversified as the
functions of the express companies have become,
success has more than kept pace with their extension
into varied fields, and a keen, wideawake public
interest in the express business is demanded, not
alone by the public and necessary character of the
business itself, but still more by the extraordinary
return which the companies receive for service
performed.
 Six companies control more than 90% of the
country’s express business, and of these the Adams is
one of the oldest and most powerful. Organized more
than fifty-six years ago, its capital stock had grown to
$10,000,000 by 1866, in which year the members of
the association, as the shareholders are called,
received a stock dividend of $2,000,000. The
$10,000,000 of stock itself did not represent shares
issued for cash. According to the company’s own
reports, no shares were ever issued for cash. The
100,000 shares were given to members of the
association to represent each member’s pro rata
ownership in the assets which had accumulated from
earnings. As late as 1890, according to the census
figures, the company had an actual investment in
property employed in its business of but $1,128,195.
Yet it had been paying 8% dividends for many years,
or 80% on the actual value of the property in use. In
1898 it distributed $12,000,000 of its own bonds to
stockholders, these bonds to be secured by the deposit
in trust of the surplus funds not used in the express
business. At this time the company reduced its
dividend rate to 4%, but as 4% was also paid on the
bonds, the stockholders did not suffer any loss of
income. By 1904 the dividend rate had mounted to
10%, the bond interest remaining at 4%. In 1907,
$24,000,000 additional bonds were given to the
stockholders, likewise secured by another fat surplus,
and like the first issue, paying 4% in interest.
Dividends on the stock have since been maintained at
12% and there has grown up another surplus of nearly
$25,000,000 which must soon be disbursed.
Meanwhile the property actually employed for express
purposes has grown to but something more than
$6,000,000.
 Moreover, there is another large fund slowly but
surely accumulating in connection with the 1907 bond
distribution. This 1907 gift to the shareholders was in
the form of a bond issue secured by the deposit of
stocks and bonds of other corporations formerly owned
by the company itself. The deed of trust provides that
if the income from these stocks and bonds is more
than enough to pay interest of 4% a year on the
$24,000,000 of Adams Express bonds, the surplus shall
accrue and be distributed in 1947 among the holders
of the Adams Express bonds. As a matter of fact there
is a computed excess income derived in this way of
$151,517.50 a year and by 1947 this will have
mounted up to more than $6,000,000, not allowing for
compound interest. Here is a 50% extra dividend being
nourished along toward maturity. If there is any better
example of being able to eat one’s cake and have it
too, I have yet to hear of it.
At the outbreak of the civil war the Adams Express
Company turned its routes in the Southern States, in
which it had enjoyed a complete monopoly, over to the
Adams-Southern Express Company, created by the
Georgia courts for the purpose of assuming this
business. The property of the association was to be
represented by 5,000 shares, of which 558 were then
issued. The Adams Express Company has held to the
present day a dominant interest in this association,
which it created to facilitate business during the war.
After hostilities ceased, it resumed some of its
Southern routes by agreement with the Adams-
Southern Express Company, whose name had
meanwhile been changed to the Southern Express Co.
The two companies still work in common and use the
same wagons and offices in many places.
 But close as the Southern Express is to its parent
company, it has a separate enough existence to justify
a separate account of its money-making capabilities.
Referring to the original 558 shares of stock, the
secretary and treasurer of the Southern Express says:
“None of the original twenty-four stockholders are
living and there is no existing record to show how
much was realized from the distribution.” This does not
help us much, but in another report to the Interstate
Commerce Commission the company appears to know
what these records showed, for it says “none of its
stock was ever issued for real property, equipment,
acquisition of securities, or for any other purpose in
the sense in which the issuance of stock is understood
in connection with corporations.” But we do find that in
1866 the number of shares was increased to 30,000
and distributed to the owners as a stock dividend.
Plainly, the civil war did not impoverish the express
carriers. Then in 1886 enough more new stock was
created to give the owners five shares in place of
every three which they already held, so that there are
now 50,000 shares.
Five hundred and fifty-eight shares of stock, the
circumstances of whose issue are known to no one
living, have sprouted into 50,000 shares by the mere
process of paying stock dividends. Dividends of 8%, or
$400,000 a year, are now paid upon the 50,000
shares, although the entire value of the company’s
property, real estate, buildings, equipment, furniture,
etc., was only $944,179 on June 30, 1909. Here are
dividends of 8% on $5,000,000 stock, or more than
40% on the value of the property employed in the
business. And this is not all. The Southern Express
Company owns high-grade stocks and bonds valued at
almost $4,000,000, which may some fine day form the
basis of another melon.
If the Adams Express Company and its Southern
associate were the only ones to shower their members
with unheard-of profits we might be inclined to think
they had been visited with peculiar and exceptional
good fortune. Such is far from being the case. Let us
proceed alphabetically and see how the members of
the American Express Company have fared.
The Adams and American are easily the two most
important of the express companies, and control, or
have controlled at various times, all the other
important companies with the exception of the Pacific.
Since 1868 the capital of the American has stood at
$18,000,000, this stock having been issued in
exchange for the shares of the original American
Express Company and the Merchants’ Union Express
Company, under articles of merger and association
dated November 25, 1868. The company’s books show
that $5,300,000 was the value of the assets taken over
at that time. There was $183,819 in cash; $1,261,023
in securities; $2,200,300 in real estate, less a
mortgage of $505,143; and $1,260,000 in equipment;
making a total of $4,400,000. New stock was sold
which realized $900,000 in cash, making a total of
$5,300,000 in assets for the $18,000,000 of stock. No
new stock has been issued since 1868 and no further
cash has been paid into the treasury except from
earnings.
From its own balance sheet we find the company
now has less than $10,000,000 in real property and
equipment, all of which does not represent property
employed in the service, because the item “real
property” includes real estate investments.
 With an original investment in cash and property of
but one-third the par value of its capital stock, the
American Express Company now pays dividends on
this stock of 12% a year and for many years paid 6, 8
and 10%. Moreover, it has accumulated from its
earnings a fund of more than $20,000,000 which is
invested in readily negotiable stocks and bonds, the
yearly income on which amounted to $1,178,000 in
1909. Among these securities are such high-grade
railroad stocks as Chicago and Northwestern, Northern
Pacific, New Haven, New York Central and Union
Pacific.
Six years ago (1904-5), the substantial assets of the
American Express Company had grown from
$5,300,000, the amount fixed in the articles of
association, to six times that amount. These assets, let
me repeat, did not represent new capital put into the
business, for none whatever was put in, but were
accumulations of earnings over and above funds
required to carry on the business and pay dividends of
8% upon $18,000,000 of stock. Even the association’s
own shareholders failed to see the need of such a
treasure and in 1906 a committee representing them
addressed the officers of the company thus: “It is
evident the management has faith in its ability to
conserve the vast fund so accumulated beyond the
needs of the business, without wasting the same or
embarking it in new and dangerous ventures, and
while we personally neither criticise them nor express
any want of confidence in them, still it is our opinion,
and that of many representative holders of long
standing, experience and means, that this immense
fund should not be further rapidly increased to become
a source of temptation to the possible weakness or a
snare to the possible inexperience of their successors.”
 I would like to quote further from both Mr. Benson and Mr.
Atwood. The former writes two articles which appeared in Pearson’s
Magazine in February and March, 1911, clearly showing not only why
we have no parcels post, but, to some extent, the raid which the
express companies have made and are making on postal service
revenues that rightfully and legally should accrue to the government.
The latter, Mr. Atwood, speaks in three splendid articles in the
American Magazine (February, March and April), under the caption,
“The Great Express Monopoly.” Each of the gentlemen handles his
subject masterfully. Each of them set forth facts which every
American citizen should know and, knowing, should go after every
public official who has ignorantly permitted or knowingly condoned,
aided or cloaked the criminal raiding into the legitimate field of the
postal service and revenues. Every one who can should get hold of
and read the five articles referred to. I shall probably quote further
from them in the closing division of this volume, but to appreciate
them fully one should read them entire and connectedly.
Sufficient has here been said, however, to show any fair-minded
reader that our express companies, or the railways which use the
express companies merely as pinch-bars to pry into our postal
revenues on the one hand and as cloaks for excessive rates to the
general public for handling light or parcels freight on the other, are
illegally taking millions of dollars annually for a service which should
be, and which was originally intended to be, rendered by the
Postoffice Department.
I say that the express companies, or the railroads over which they
operate and which, today, virtually own and control them, are doing
an illegal business—a business carried on in flat contravention and
defiance of the plain letter of the federal statutes.
I say further: The contravention of law which makes this vast
lootage—steal—possible has no other basis for its past and present
raiding of the field of postal revenues than corrupted federal
legislators and, either corrupted or loose screwed, juridic opinions
which are permitted to stand in place of the plainly worded statute
of 1845.
And there is a colossal irony in the brazen effrontery with which
this raiding of the postal revenues by the express companies has
been, and is, carried on.
On the one hand, we have public officials cackling about its
costing the government 4 to 9 cents a pound to transport and
handle second-class mail matter—rather, making voluble and
voluminous guesses that it costs from 4 to 9 cents a pound—while
on the other hand, the express companies enter into contracts with
publishers to carry and deliver at line stations that same second-
class matter at one-half cent a pound.
When it is remembered that the express companies must “split”
with the transporting railroad to the extent of 40 to 63 per cent of
their gross haulage and delivery charge, the talk of its costing the
government 4 to 9 cents to do what the express companies do for a
half-cent—in some cases possibly, for less even than that—passes,
from the domain of irony and becomes disgusting twaddle.
The postal rate for carrying merchandise parcels not exceeding
four pounds is 16 cents a pound. That rate is, as previously stated,
outrageously high and the maximum weight of four pounds is almost
as outrageously low. Both the postal weight and rate have been held
for years at the figures named, it has been numerously asserted and
is generally believed, by the “influence” of express company and
railroad lobbying in Congress. The result is that by far the larger
portion of light or parcels shipments go by express instead of by
mail, as it was clearly intended in the law of 1845 they should go.
To get this business, the express companies cut under the
government charge of 16 cents a pound, as they can both easily and
profitably do.
Nor do they hold the shipper to a maximum of four pounds for any
single package or parcel. In fact, they set up practically no maximum
parcels weight, and they deliver at any postoffice or station along
their lines of service. In fact, again, the express companies now
have, it is asserted, a sort of compensating agreement by which the
company collecting the business can have another company make
deliveries, each company taking its prorated share of the profit on
the carriage and handling of the parcel or consignment.
Such arrangement, it will readily be seen, enables the express
company to accept package consignments for delivery at almost any
point in the country, if on a railroad, or for delivery at some rail point
near the addressed destination of the parcel.
Then, too, as Mr. Benson points out, the railroads and railroad
officials and owners are also controlling owners of the express
companies. Being so, they do not hesitate virtually to “club” the
public into shipping its parcels freight by express. They do this by
fixing a minimum weight in their freight tariffs. That minimum is 100
pounds. That is, it will cost the shipper as much to send a four or
ten pound package to destination by fast freight as it would cost him
to send 100 pounds.
The foregoing is sufficient to show the reader that the express
companies are permitted to raid the legitimate business of the
Postoffice Department—or what should be and, under the law, was
intended to be the business of the Postoffice Department.
The express companies, or their railroad control—which amounts
to the same thing—also forage the field of third-class matter which,
by law, was made a preserve of the Postoffice Department.
The postal rate for third-class mail matter is eight cents per
pound. That rate is, of course, away too high. With The Man on the
Ladder the conviction remains, as it has been a conviction for twenty
or more years, that the postal rate of eight cents per pound for
third-class matter is three times what that rate should be—easily
double the charge that should be made to cover the legitimate cost
to the government for handling it, which cost is all that the
department should seek or be permitted to collect.
 Trusting that the reader will find excuse for me, I desire to repeat
here what, in substance, I have written into an earlier page:
The postal service of the nation should not be made a revenue-
producing service, any more than the War, Navy, Interior, Justice or
other departments of the federal service should be made revenue-
producers.
If the people pay—have paid and are willing to pay—the actual
cost of an efficient, honestly administered and managed postal
service, that is all they should be asked or expected to pay.
But returning to the express companies’ raidings into the
postoffice revenues, let me here assert what every observant citizen
of intelligence knows: The express companies are today carrying
millions of pounds of books—leather, cloth and paper bound books—
at a rate for carriage and delivery materially below the government’s
excessive rate of eight cents a pound.
These same express companies are today carrying thousands of
tons of catalogues, pamphlets, business, political and other circulars,
color prints of apparel fabrics, etc., etc., which the Postoffice
Department ought to handle—and, under the law, should handle,
and, but for that extortionate rate of eight cents a pound would
handle.
It has been repeatedly asserted by persons who are familiar with
carriage and handling costs, both in the postal and private service,
that the postal rate of 8 cents a pound for third-class mail matter
has been maintained—and is maintained—by reason of corrupt and
corrupting influences (the coat-pocket “dropped roll,” the “job” bribe,
the “deposit slip,” etc., etc.), which express and railway interests
have liberally exerted upon federal legislators and upon executive
and judicial officeholders—exerted upon “public servants.”
However, that may be, the facts today are that the postal service
rate of 8 cents a pound for third-class matter is so excessive—so
conspicuously above the cost of the service rendered—that the
express companies find no difficulty in under-cutting it—in many
cases, more than cutting it in half—and still reap millions of profit
from the handling of such matter.
If a publisher has an edition of five, ten or one hundred thousand
of a book to be delivered in piece, or single copies, an express
company representative will see him at once—often see him before
the book is from the press. If the publisher is doing a large and
general business in book publishing or the book trade, the express
companies have already seen him, by representative, and a carriage
and handling charge agreed upon, under which the contracting or
agreeing express company will handle any or all the publisher’s
books, both single copies and trade shipments, at a rate much below
the government’s postage rate of eight cents a pound.
If a publisher brings out a book which weighs, when wrapped or
jacketed for mailing, say one pound on which the mailing charge
would be 8 cents, the express company tenders a rate of 7 cents. If
the edition of the book is a large one the express company will
tender a rate of 6 cents or even a rate as low as 5 cents or 4 cents.
In performing such service the express company is a violator of
law—a brazen outlaw. Yet the government not only permits this
outlawry, but, by maintaining that excessive rate of 8 cents a pound,
the government virtually invites it.
What I have above said applies with equal or even greater force to
the transportation and distribution of mercantile and other
catalogues, and of descriptive pamphlets, etc. However, I think
sufficient has been said to cover the point raised.
The government persists in charging a third-class rate which
virtually drives thousands of tons of third-class matter to the express
companies. The express companies handle this vast tonnage at a
cost charge to the sender or shipper, ranging from 16⅔ per cent to
50 per cent below the government’s mail rate.
The express companies roll up millions—many millions—of profits
every year, while at the higher rate, the government officials (some
of them), slash up the ambient with rapier verbiage about “deficits”
and make extension-ladder guesses at what it “actually costs” the
Postoffice Department to carry and handle a pound of third, or some
other, class of mail matter.
Another raid upon the postal revenues—and the raid is by the
oldest gang of looters in the game—or graft—is the railroads.
For lo, these many years, the railroads have carried the mails at a
carriage charge of $21.37 a ton per annum per line mile of haul.[9]
That is $21.37 is allowed on “dense” traffic lines where the daily mail
weight is above 5,000 pounds. On lines where the daily weight is
5,000 lbs., the rate is $171.00 per annum per line mile of haul. For
mail weights less than 5,000 pounds the rate of pay varies, the ton-
mile rate increasing from 21.37 cents for a weight above 5,000
pounds, to $1.17 per ton-mile for an average weight of 200 pounds.
Following are tabulations showing the scale of mail pay and also
the postoffice car rental pay. I get them from the Wolcott
Commission report made in 1901. The tables and accompanying
paragraphs form part of the testimony of Mr. Marshall M. Kirkman,
who at the time of the Wolcott Commission hearings was Second
Vice-President of the Chicago and Northwestern Railway. The rates
of pay may have been modified in some slight degree since 1901. If
so, I have not learned of the fact. I am of the opinion that the
figures given by Mr. Kirkman still govern as rates of mail pay and car
rentals, and as Mr. Kirkman was speaking for the railroads the reader
may depend upon it that the case of the railroads—especially of the
Chicago and Northwestern, then a system of about 5,000 miles of
trackage—was presented in as favorable a light as the governing
facts would permit:

RATES BASED ON THE WEIGHT OF THE MAILS.[10]

Average daily weight Present Present Present

of mails over whole pay rate rate
route. per mile per ton per
hundred
 per per mile. pounds
annum. [11] per
mile.[12]
Cents
200 pounds $42.75 $1.170 5.85
500 pounds 64.12 .700 3.50
1,000 pounds 85.50 .468 2.34
2,000 pounds 128.25 .351 1.75
4,000 pounds 156.46 .214 1.07
5,000 pounds 171.00 .187 .96
Each 2,000 pounds in
excess of 5,000
pounds 21.37 .058 .29

The most striking feature of this table is the rapid

decline in the rates paid with an increase of weight.
In addition to the above payments based upon
weight there is an additional allowance when full-sized
postoffice cars are provided, the Postoffice Department
deciding when these are necessary. The rates of pay
for these cars are as follows:
RATES ALLOWABLE FOR FULL-SIZED POSTOFFICE
CARS.[13]

Rate per
Rate per mile
Length of car. mile of track
run by cars.
per annum.
Cents
40 feet $25.00 3.424
45 feet 27.50 3.786
50 feet 32.50 4.471
55 to 60 feet 40.00 5.498
 The first column, which shows the rate paid per mile
of track per annum, is likely to be misunderstood. The
compensation seems very liberal, and it would be so in
fact if it were as large as it appears to be. To gain $25
per mile per annum a 40-foot car must make a round
trip over each mile of road per day. If it only makes
one trip over the road each day, it will earn but $12.50
per mile per annum, as it would be but half of what is
known as a line. The statute reads:
“That … pay may be allowed for every line
comprising a daily trip each way of railway postoffice
cars, at a rate not exceeding twenty-five dollars per
mile per annum for cars forty feet in length.…”

Let us here take note what the foregoing tabulated figures mean—
figures which Mr. Kirkman argued, if I read his testimony correctly,
are too low[14]. I have read the testimony of numerous other
railroad representatives, testimony before the Loud Commission,
1898, the Wolcott Commission, 1901, the Penrose-Overstreet
Commission, 1907, and before the Hughes Commission, whose
report is not yet compiled for publication. Each and all of them, so
far as I have read their testimony, argue eloquently that the present
rates of railway mail-pay and car rentals are, if unfair at all, unfair to
the railroads—that the rates of pay are too low.
In this connection a most peculiar, if not indeed a peculiarly
suggestive, harmony of opinion appears to have existed between the
special pleaders for the railroads in this matter of railway mail-pay
and government officials—both executive and legislative—who have
had most to do with fixing railway pay rates. The government has
spent millions of dollars for investigations by commissions, by Senate
and House committees, by inspectors, special agents, etc. Each
commission has heard numerously from the railways. Twenty-seven
of them were in hearing before the Wolcott Commission. The
testimony of Mr. Kirkman, from whom I quote the preceding
tabulations, while varying in phase, phrase and verbiage from the
other railroad representatives, has two essential features common to
them all, or, I should say, three features common to them all.
1. The railroad representatives unanimously oppose any reduction
in the rates for railway mail pay (weights pay), and mail car rentals
—“space charge,” they call it.
2. They are a unit in declaring that the present rates are too low,
but they as unitedly express a willingness to continue business at
the old rates rather than to contemplate the possibility of a reduction
in them, or even squarely to argue the justice and fairness of such a
reduction.
3. When forced down to “tacks”—down to specific facts—by some
interrogating member of the commission before which they are
testifying, these railroad representatives again have a marked
similarity as to “form.” Each comes eloquently forward with his own
set or sets of figures and proceeds to make his own application of
them. But when some commissioner asks for information and
enlightenment as to “net cost,” “relative cost,” etc., of mail carriage
as compared with the cost of express, freight or passenger handling,
the railroad representatives, almost to a man, at once begin to
display a dense denseness that is marvelously wondrous or
wonderously marvelous, as the reader may choose to word it.
The peculiar or suggestive harmony between the opinions of these
railway representatives and the controlling executive and legislative
officials of the Federal Government, is especially conspicuous under
point 2 as numbered above. The railway people plead that the ruling
rates are too low, but are willing to stand for them. However, they
do not want the rates lowered.
The peculiar harmony of opinions just adverted to is ample
evidence, or so it appears to The Man on the Ladder, of this one
fact:
The present rates of pay for railway mail weight carriage are the
rates fixed by the act of 1879. Freight, express and passenger rates
or tariffs have been changed—have been lowered. The railways did
not want the mail rates lowered and the governmental powers that
be, and have been, were apparently at least, quite willing to take
their view of the matter, even if they did not concur in the numerous
half-baked, threadbare arguments advanced by the railroad people
in support.
The rates of railway mail pay have remained the same for thirty-
three years—until 1908.
Comment is unnecessary.
As evidence in support of points 1 and 3 as above numbered,
points on which railroad representatives so uniformly agree in
support of, or, with equal uniformity, display concurring lapses of
memory or lack of knowledge relating to, I shall here quote further
from Mr. Kirkman’s testimony before the Wolcott Commission. In
electing to quote from Mr. Kirkman rather than from another to
evidence points 1 and 3, I am influenced only by the fact that I have
the report of the Wolcott Commission before me at the moment, and
to the further fact that Mr. Kirkman’s testimony appears to me
cogently illustrative of the points to which I have called the reader’s
attention.
In closing his prepared or written testimony (page 208 of the
report), Mr. Kirkman says:

In conclusion, it may be stated that the

compensation afforded this railroad for carrying the
mail is not now in excess of what it should be. It is not
improper, therefore, for us to beg, if rates can not be
increased, that no further reductions may be made;
also, that the practice of fixing the compensation paid
for mail service on the basis of the weight carried at
the commencement of the four-year periods (instead
of on the weights carried in the middle of the periods),
may be abandoned in favor of a more equitable
system.
 From the above it will be seen that this witness states with
confidence that the compensation his road (the Chicago and
Northwestern) receives “is not now in excess of what it should be”
and begs that, “if the rates cannot be increased, that no further
reductions be made.”
I shall now reprint a few pages from the report of Mr. Kirkman’s
oral testimony as illustrative of point 3:

By Mr. Catchings:

Q. What did you state were the gross receipts from

your whole system for carrying the mails?—A. About
$800,000.
Q. Now, can you state to this commission what your
net profit was for carrying that amount over your
system?—A. I do not know.
Q. Can you make any estimate?—A. No, sir.
Q. You heard the testimony of Mr. Simpson
(representing the Flint and Pere Marquette Railroad),
did you not?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. He stated that his road carried the mails at a
dead loss. What that loss was he was unable to give
us. I understand you to say that you do make a profit
out of carrying the mails?—A. I beg your pardon. I said
that, because we got approximately the same rate per
ton per mile for carrying the mails as for express (and
that the express rate had been a matter of careful
negotiation as between our company and the express
company); I have reason to believe that we would not
have taken the express business unless we derived a
profit from it, and therefore I think it is reasonable to
suppose that we must derive a profit from the
postoffice business.
 Q. Do you mean to tell me that you have no
estimate as to the cost of carrying this mail matter?—
A. Not to my knowledge. We have taken what the
Government gave us. As I have shown you, they have
never pretended to remunerate us for many services
rendered.
Q. If you are unable to say what your profit was for
carrying this mail, how can you complain that you are
not being properly compensated for the service
rendered?—A. Because we render so many services
today that we did not formerly when the rate was
fixed.
Q. I understand; but, so far as we know from your
testimony, you may be amply compensated for it.—A.
We receive, as I said before, a certain rate from the
express company for analogous service, and do not
render them anything like the equivalent that we
render the Postoffice Department, so that we must
derive a great deal more profit from the express
business than we do from the postoffice.
Q. Still, it would not follow that you were not
deriving proper compensation for carrying the mail,
would it?—A. It would not follow that we do not derive
some compensation from it.
Q. Unless you are prepared to tell us what your
profit is, or your loss, as the case may be, of course
you can not expect us to know it, and, unless we know
it, you can not expect us to sympathize with the
complaint.—A. We are not making complaint about the
compensation we receive, but the threat held over our
heads that our compensation would be cut down.
When they cut us down on the land-grant roads they
did not make it a matter of negotiation at all; they just
simply took off 20 per cent.
 Q. Do you not think that the best way to prove this
complaint would be to show that you are not receiving
due compensation?—A. If I was keeping a boarding
house and you came to me and I agreed to give you
two meals a day, and you afterwards exacted four,
because you are mightier than I in forcing it, would it
be necessary for me to prove that I was giving you
something that you were not entitled to under your
contract?
Q. You ought to show us what your net profits are.—
A. It is impossible.

By the Chairman:

Q. General Catchings calls your attention to this: In

your direct examination I asked you if you had any
suggestions to make to this commission in the matter
of changes of law. You said you thought the law should
be so changed as to increase your compensation to an
adequate sum. Now, in answer to General Catchings,
you say that it is remunerative; he asks you how much
you make, and you can not tell; then he asks you why
you recommend a change in the law if you will not tell
the commission what you are now making by it, and if
you can tell what your profits in carrying the mail are.
That is what General Catchings is anxious to have you
tell.

By Mr. Catchings:

Q. I would like very much to know if we are under-

paying these roads; we would like to pay them.—A.
You ask a question that there is nobody but
Omniscience could answer, because there is no
possible method by which you can determine
accurately what the cost is of carrying traffic. The
Government did pretend at one time to divide the
expense of operating as between passenger and
freight, but finally abandoned it. Now, if you can not
determine the cost between passenger and freight,
how can you determine it between mail and other
kinds?
Q. There is one thing certain; if the roads can not
determine it, the Government can not.—A. Is it not
true that, in matters of this kind, no one would expect
anything definite in the absence of definite
information?
Q. I do not see why you can not figure as well the
cost of carrying these mails as you can the cost of
carrying the express packages. I do not see why it
ought to be more difficult for you to determine that.—
A. There is not any single thing that a railroad carries,
from a first class passenger to a cord of stone, that it
can tell accurately what the cost is. Tariffs are a matter
of evolution.
Q. At least, your road is better off than the Flint and
Pere Marquette, for they carry at a loss and you carry
at a profit—A. I did not say we carry at a profit; but I
say that is my judgment, sir.
Q. I believe something has been said about the
extraordinary cost at which these railroads handle
these postal cars. I would like to have you help me
reach a conclusion from that. How many railway postal
cars have you on your system?—A. I do not know how
many we do have.

By the Chairman:
 Q. Does your statement show?—A. No, sir; it does
not.

By Mr. Catchings:

Q. How much do you receive from the government

for the railway postal cars?—A. We receive certain
compensation for cars over a given length.
Q. You stated, I believe, the gross revenue to you
for these cars?—A. We have a great many that we do
not receive any revenue from the government for their
use.
Q. I want to know what your revenue is from the
postal cars?—A. I can not tell you.
Q. You can furnish that amount?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. I wish you would furnish this commission a
statement showing the gross revenue to your system
of road derived from these postal cars; and then I wish
you would furnish a statement showing what the cost
to you is of maintaining those cars, keeping them in
repair, what the estimated cost to you is of hauling
them, and the number of cars?—A. I will give you all
that you desire so far as I can.

By Mr. Loud:

Q. You stated, Mr Kirkman, that you were Vice-

President of the Chicago and Northwestern?—A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Are you General Manager?—A. No, sir.
Q. What is your particular business in connection
with the railroad?—A. I have charge of the local
finances and accounts of the company.
Q. You are not prepared to answer technically, then,
questions that might be propounded to you, as has
been developed in the examination by Mr. Catchings,
about the cost of the operation of a car and the cost of
the transportation of a ton of freight, passengers, etc?
—A. I am as well prepared to answer the question as
anyone. There is no one, as I said before, who knows
what the cost is or can tell you definitely, simply for
the reason that it is utterly impossible to fix the cost as
between passengers and freight, for instance.
Q. What is the use of our investigation, then?—A. I
am here before this commission; my time here,
perhaps, represents ten dollars or ten cents. What am
I going to charge it to? In this case perhaps to mail. In
many expenses of railroads there are questions
impossible to determine as to what expenditures
should be charged to. You may make, as the General
has, a comparison between the Flint and Pere
Marquette, what he thinks is an approximate
statement of cost; it may be more, and it may not. For
instance, the Government of the United States requires
that the mail shall be carried on fast trains—
Q You are going into quite an argument. You ought
to be able to tell what it cost to haul the mail.—A. No,
sir; I can not.
Q. You can not tell?—A. No, sir; nobody can tell.
Q. Could not your General Manager give us some
information on that subject?
Mr. Chandler. He can tell how much their gross
receipts are and what the gross expenditures are, and
he can tell whether their whole business is done at a
profit or not; but I do not understand that the railroads
can subdivide their receipts and expenditures so as to
tell whether any particular branch of it actually pays a
profit or not. The previous witness undertook to do it,
and I noticed, as he went on, that it was mere
guesswork. Mr. Kirkman says he never has done it.
The Witness. I want to say, Mr. Loud, that this
question of division of cost has been up before
railroads and experts for forty years, and here is what
the chief engineer of the Pennsylvania says in regard
to it. He estimates that the cost, for instance, of
maintenance of track and machinery increases with the
square of the velocity.

By the Chairman:

Q. How much do you charge this maintenance of

way?—A. What is the wear and tear of machinery and
track from the passage of a particular train? No one
can tell nor guess approximately. In an examination of
this question I gave it, probably, the most exhaustive
study that I have given any subject in my life, because
so much depended on it—I searched all the records of
Scotland and England and of the United States to
determine, but unavailingly—

By Mr. Loud:

Q. Could you not put a train of five cars on and run

it from Chicago to Council Bluffs and give
approximately what that train would cost to operate
and the approximate cost of wear and tear to your
rails?—A. I can determine all those things that are
apparent; that is, the cost—
 Q. That is all we expect; what is reasonable.—A. But
then there is the question of interest and the wear and
tear of machinery and track.
Q. Let us discard the interest. You ought to be able
to get at the cost of operation.—A. That train so run
has to receive the constant attention of station men, of
track men, the whole length. If you will give it a
moment’s reflection you will see how utterly impossible
it is to determine it accurately enough to state here to
this commission.
Q. Approximately, it ought to be a perfectly easy
matter. It seems to be to other railroad men.—A. I do
not think there is any railroad man who has given it
any more attention than I have and no railroad man
understanding the subject will do more than guess at
it.
Q. I will ask you a few questions. If you can answer
them I wish you would. How many miles of land-grant
railroad have you?—A. My impression is that we have
about 600.
Q. Out of your total of 5,000 miles?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the average charge on your road for
freight per ton mile?—A. Last year ninety-nine one-
hundredths of a cent per ton mile.
Q. You do not know how much it costs? That is
correct, is it not? You do not know how much it costs?
—A. That is correct.
Q. You do not know how much it costs to operate a
40 or 60 foot mail car?—A. No, sir; only approximately.
Q. Can you say, approximately, how much?—A. No,
sir. It will afford me great pleasure to give you all this
 information that can be determined if you desire, but it
is valueless in itself.
Q. Can you say approximately?—A. I can not. I
would be very glad to furnish you all the figures, but
such questions, like the cost of the velocity with which
we send trains across the country, are unknown.
Q. Does it cost a dollar a mile as the outside?—A. I
could not——
Q. Would it not?—A. I would not want to pay you
the disrespect of saying a thing that I know nothing
about.

The foregoing testimony appears on pages 213-216 of the Wolcott

report. The italics are mine. When so well informed a railroad man
as Mr. Kirkman answers questions—questions covering that which
appears, to a layman at least, to be essential in successful railway
management—as he is reported in the foregoing, what is to be
thought of such testimony? With all due respect to Mr. Kirkman, it
may be said that his apparently frank confession of ignorance as to
several points made subject of inquiry by the commissioners in the
part of his testimony quoted, many readers of it are left with more
or less valid grounds for doubt—grounds for asking more or less
offensive questions: “Was the witness telling the truth or
equivocating—stalling for time?” If he told the truth—if his
acknowledged ignorance was genuine—as to several essential
factors in the successful management and financing of a railroad—
then of what value are his—or any other railroad man’s—statistics
and tabulations of cost, profits, losses, rates, tariffs, “cost of
velocity,” etc., etc.?
Mr. Kirkman’s reputation for truth and veracity, I believe, is as high
as that of any other railroad man’s in the country, yet on several
basic factors in the problem which the Wolcott Commission was,
presumably at least, trying to solve, he confessed an ignorance as
profound as its members and the officials of the Postoffice
Department acknowledge. If, as Mr. Kirkman virtually testifies, the
information sought is beyond the ken of man, then why persist in
spending thousands—yes millions—of money trying to run it down?
If these railroad men do not know the things which it is necessary
to know to arrive at a solution of this railway mail carrying problem
—to arrive at a just, equitable rate of pay for the service rendered—
why waste more time on them?
That question brings us back to the rails again.
Why do not our postal officials and commissions reach out to
Cornville and summon a few eighth-grade nubbins? Then turn over
to them the wastefully collected and collated statistics, data and talk
which the Postoffice Department has in cold storage and tell them to
“go to it” at, say, $25 per week?
Yes, why not?
Skilled lawyers, reputed “experts,” men of “experience” and
“students,” it would seem, have told all they know about this railway
mail cost problem—told the truth or equivocated or lied about it, to
the best of their ability and in full accord and harmony with their
several “standards” of veracity. Still they have failed to uncover or to
divulge the essential and governing factors in the problem—failed for
thirty or forty years. Is it not about time, then, for sensible people, I
would ask, to enter the plea of the Master and say, “Suffer little
children to come unto me?”
Any average “shock” of eighth-grade nubbins from Cornville, or
from other hamlets where the “little red school house” has been in
fairly active operation, will “figger” the cost—the cost to the railroads
—of mail haulage and handling, in not to exceed four weeks.
That is, such a bunch of eighth graders will arrive at a dependable
solution of this forty-year-old problem in four weeks, if they are
given the plain, bald facts upon which a correct solution depends,
and not turned loose on a lot of befuddling, alleged data and
accepted “testimony.”
 As I must necessarily touch upon the raid of the railroads into
postal revenues when I reach the closing division of this volume, I
shall not comment further here on the testimony and special
pleadings presented by railroad representatives to the several postal
commissions that have sat and sat and then “reported.” The
commissions probably—possibly, if not probably—reported the best
they could on the evidence presented to them. Certain it is, their
reports present much valuable—much informative—data of which
neither Congress nor the Postoffice Department appears to have
made any constructive or corrective use.
Before quitting this railway pay raid, however, it may be well to do
a little figuring—basing our figures on Mr. Kirkman’s tabulations of
rates, printed some pages back. The tables of rates are correct.
They ought to be. If rate-tables could vote the youngest of the two
was entitled to the suffrage many years since.[15] But let us look into
and over them in a little-red-school-house way.
The first mail rail-haul weight is 200 pounds. That weight of mail
is carried on some cornfield railroad—“a feeder.” It is all bundled or
sacked, if “free in country” or other second-class matter, sacked or
pouched if first or third-class, and, also, if valuable fourth-class.
Some of the fourth-class, if large in dimension of package, may, of
course, be loose. But whatever their class, character, pouching,
sacking, casing, or jacketing, that estimated weight (estimated once
every four years), is received by the railroad and dumped into a
corner of a “general utility” car. By that I mean a car used for
carrying baggage and express matter, between stations—jars,
buckets, boxes, bags, etc., of local “favors” or shipments; such as
jam, fruits, eggs, butter, and even “line loafers” who are going to
mother, uncle, or friend for a few days feed, or—sometimes—going
to the local metropolis for a “good time.”
But let us, for the moment, stick to that quadrenially estimated
200 pounds of mail. At the several stations along the cornfield or
“feeder” railroad the packages, sacks and pouches of mail are tossed
off to the station agent. Coops of chickens, cases of eggs, tubs or
jars of butter and crates of fruit or vegetables are taken on.
Have you, the reader, ever traveled on a “cornfield line?” Have you
ever “got off to stretch your limbs” at some station between start or
“change” to destination? Have you, while stretching those limbs of
yours, ever noticed or taken note of the miscellaneous and
promiscuous sort of goods—merchandise and human adipose tissue
—that get into companionship, into carriage or housed connection,
with that “estimated” 200 pounds of United States mail?
Well, if you have, no argument is necessary to convince you that
the “railway mail pay” rate on that cornfield line is from two to five
times the rate paid for any other weight (tonnage) carried.
Turn back and look at the table of railway mail-pay (weight). Look
at the rate per 100 pound per mile haul—5.85 cents, or eleven and
seven-tenths cents for carrying 200 pounds one mile.
Do you weigh 200 pounds? If not, our President and several other
gentlemen in this country do, and you, the President, or the other
gentlemen, will be carried—and for thirty or more years have been
carried on any railroad east of the “Rockies”—for three cents a mile.
Now, you, the President, or other gentlemen, pay only two cents a
mile for rail haulage on most all of the cornfield or “feeder” lines
(and on “trunk” lines as well), east of the Rocky Mountains.
You see the joke of it? The postal revenue raid in it?
Two hundred pounds of United States mail is railroaded in a
general—a catch-all or pick-up—car at a government charge of 11.7
cents per mile, while you, the President, or other gentlemen, pay but
3 cents! You, and the other fellows as well, have an upholstered
seat, have watering and toilet facilities and accommodations, have
smoking, “pitch,” “high-five,” “cinch,” “euchre” and, maybe, even
“poker” as divertisements—with palatable “wets” on the side!
You, the President, and the other gentlemen, have all this
sumptuous haulage for three (or two) cents a mile, while the 200
pounds (averaged every four years) of United States mail, handled
as junk or dunnage, pays 11.7 cents a mile.
Does it not look—look to you—somewhat off at the corners
somewhere? Does it not look as if that railway “system” feeder line
was getting robustly large pay for the service rendered?
Well, if it does not so appear to you, it appears to me that you
should, at your earliest convenience, consult some qualified and
competent alienist, or drop into a “rest resort” for six months or
more.
As to the other weights given in that tabulation—500, 1,000 and
up to 5,000—nothing here needs be said. They are all below the
“postoffice car” weights. At the weights, 5,000 pounds per day of
mail-haul, the student of this rail-mail pay raid should sit up and
begin to observe his nurse and the attending physician.
Before I further inflict the reader with personal comments, it might
be of mutual advantage to quote a recognized authority on the
weights actually carried in postal mail cars—weights of actual mail.
I take the following from the official report of the Penrose-
Overstreet Commission, pages 30-31.
“It is stated in the report of Dr. Henry C. Adams to the former
Commission (Vol. II, 233), that—
 “The average loading of the postoffice car, according to the testimony
before the Commission is 2 tons. It must be admitted, in view of the
great weight of these cars, that such loading pays little regard to the
requirements of economy. It is doubtful if, on the basis of such loading,
the railways could afford to carry mail at a rate much cheaper than it is
now carried. On the other hand, if cars were loaded with 3½ tons,
which Mr. Davis says is an easy load, or should the average load go as
high as 6 tons, which, according to testimony, is accomplished on the
Pennsylvania Railroad by a special train, I am confident that railways
operate upon a margin of profit in carrying mail that warrants a
reduction in pay.
“For the purpose of emphasizing the importance of loading as
essential to the determination of railway mail compensation, as well as
to suggest the line of desired improvement in the present railway mail
service, it may be added that were it possible to load 5 tons in a car, the
expense would be reduced to $1,766 per mile of line; that is to say, a
sum less than one-half the amount actually paid.”

Dr. Adams in the foregoing was presenting a judgmental summary, or digest, of the
testimony before the Wolcott Commission on this “railway-mail-pay” question. His opinion,
or conclusion, as to the dominant factors involved, has been recognized as authority—if
not final authority—on the points to which he spoke.
Now, let us figure a little more. I’m not much at “ciferin.” Maybe the reader can help me
along. Let’s get properly started.
Those rail “postoffice cars,” of which Dr. Adams spoke, are from 40 to 55 feet or more in
length. They must weigh, empty, or “stripped,” figuring running trucks, body, etc., forty to
one-hundred or more thousand pounds. So, according to Dr. Adams, this twenty to fifty
ton vehicle is sent hurtling over a hundred or a five-hundred mile run on a steel track with
finest and most modern engine or motive power, baggage and express cars ahead, and
sleepers, buffet, diner and observation cars trailing, to carry two tons of United States mail
in each mail car in the train.
Oh yes, I know that Dr. Adams spoke some years ago (1901, I believe), and spoke of
the “average load” of mail carried by mail cars then. I also know that our present
Postmaster General has “gone after” this railway mail car raiding—has made them carry
more load. All praise to him for doing so. It was an action which any of his predecessors
had the power to have taken, and which should save millions of postal revenues.
The department report for 1910 (P157), states, there were 1,114 full and 3,208
apartment postal cars in service—rented cars—while there were 206 of the former and 559
of the latter (a total of 765), kept in “reserve.” That makes a total of 5,087 postal cars for
which the government pays rent.
There is, however, another strong presumption—with some very robust facts which
investigation has uncovered—that a considerable number of the so-called “reserve” cars
are in the hospitals about railroad shops, where such patients receive little but “open air
treatment.” In “emergencies” it is legitimate, of course, to presume that the division traffic
manager may order out or put on the rails any of these hospital cars, “full” or “apartment,”
as first aids to the injured. And it is right that he does so.
But why, in the name of George Washington, should all these hospital cars be charged
up to the Postoffice Department? Yes, why?
Oh, yes, I know that they are all in “service” or “reserve”—all subject to department
orders. But when one looks down from the ladder top into these shop-hospital yards for
car patients, he not unfrequently sees, unless he is freakishly nearsighted or a victim of a
new brand of strabismus, an old “flat-wheeler” which bears a marked resemblance to one
that he used to, in days agone (long agone), pause, while husking the “down-row,” and
gaze at in admiration as well as wonderment. Of course, it did not wear “flat wheels” then.
It also carries some mars and scars of time, just as The Man on the Ladder carries marks
which did not stand out so conspicuously then as now. But there, on its sides, appears,
somewhat dimmed by age, that patriotic, stirring designation: U. S. Mail Car.
This is not intended as a criticism. It is merely a suggestion as to where the present or
some future Second Assistant Postmaster General may find additional raiding into the
postal revenues.
A few years since, Professor Parsons asserted, (so the public press declared—I have not
the document by me and am writing hurriedly—the Professor will, therefore, excuse me if I
mis-spell or misquote. Corrections will be made in later editions) that the railway mail pay
and car rental raid amounted to something like $24,000,000 a year.
Speaking again from press reports, Mr. Hitchcock seems to have been going after those
raiders. At any rate he appears to have stopped that graft sluiceway to the extent—reports
vary—of from nine to fourteen millions of dollars a year.
Again, Mr. Hitchcock, we say, may your tribe increase—on this line of action.
Now let us return and do a little “red-school-house” figuring on this railroad pay raid.
Some pages back, we reprinted Mr. Kirkman’s tables of weight and car rental pay to the
railways. You can glance back and verify the figures when you deem necessary. Here
“orders” force me to hurry. But in spite of orders a few generalizations in “cipherin,” have
to be made.
Many pages back, the Postoffice Department’s own distribution of mail weights for 1907
(the last preceding “weighing period”), was printed. For ready reference, we will here
reprint it.

Per Cent.
First-class matter 7.29
Second-class matter 36.38
Third-class matter 8.32
Fourth-class matter 2.73
Franked matter .21
Penalty matter 1.99
Equipment carried in connection therewith 38.12
Empty equipment dispatched 4.96
 Total 100.00

A few pages back we figured out how a 200-pound mail weight haul stacks against,
around and up-to a 200-pound human avoirdupois haul, assuming, of course, that the
aforesaid avoirdupois is not casketed with the mail, express or baggage in front. Well, with
that understanding, the reader may take my previous statements anent those 200 pounds
of U. S. mail matter and human avoirdupois—whether citizen or imported—as made. He
should also understand that what was then said fits, of course with a varying application,
to the wheatfield, cornfield, oilfield, cottonfield, timber, tobacco and other “feeder” fields,
which carry our mails at varying rates of pay for varying weights up to 5,000 pounds.
Now, at the weight of 5,000 pounds (2½ tons), is about where the “postoffice car”
enters, and it is to the mail-carriage-pay the railways get for this postoffice car service we
wish here to “cipher” on a little. As a start, however, the “example” must be “set.” To do
that a little preliminary figuring must be done.
The quadrennial weighing of the mails is now in progress. The last preceding weighing
was in 1907. In the interim, however, Mr. Hitchcock, has made some special or test
weighing—a good and commendable business movement—of second-class mail.
From these weighings the department, I take it, has arrived at estimated results more or
less satisfactory—to itself at least. The 1910 report presents a tabulated tonnage of
second-class matter on page 329. A prolix discussion of the cost of handling second-class
mail appears on immediately associated pages. The discussion is a masterly, a forensic,
production, and, outside of Indiana, the habitat of experts, it may stand out in fair form as
a literary production. Our Third Assistant Postmaster General must, though, have got the
wires crossed or the gear jammed on his comptometer to have reached those two
“answers.”
Sixty-two and a fraction per cent of the total mail is second class.
To haul and handle a pound of second-class mail costs the government nine and a
fraction cents.

SOME LITTLE RED SCHOOL HOUSE FIGURING.

Now, let us sit down on the veranda, bring out the little red school house slates and do
some figuring on this railway pay problem, question, proposition, or whatever the
“experts” may choose to call it.
First, there, on page 329 of the 1910 report, it states, “estimated” on the basis of those
1907 “special weighings,” that there were 873,412,077 pounds of second-class mail carried
and handled.
Let’s see! Yes, of course, how simple it is. There’s that 1907 table of percentages, a
page or so back.
As it was “figured out” in 1907 by the people who did the weighing, or who bossed it,
we may consider it as dependable as the Third Assistant Postmaster General’s figures on
page 329 of the department’s 1910 report.