# Was this rule really necessary?!



## Southern Presbyterian (Jun 13, 2008)

On this date in 1920, the U. S. Postal Service ruled "that children may not be sent via parcel post".

I mean, really. Who would have done this and toward what purpose?


*And before anyone asks, YES, it is a very boring Friday afternoon at work.*


----------



## N. Eshelman (Jun 13, 2008)

Can they be sent first class.. I know its a bit more expensive, but it is not parcel post!


----------



## blhowes (Jun 13, 2008)

Don't know how reliable the source, but found this:


> According to USPS history In pre-World War I days, before the practice was banned, children were sent parcel post. A mother involved in an acrimonious divorce in 1914 shipped a baby from Stillwell to South Bend, Indiana, where its father, who had won custody, resided. For 17 cents, the child traveled in a container marked “Live Baby.” Postal workers saw to its safe arrival.
> 
> That same year, the parents of a blonde four-year-old named May Pierstroff sent her from Grangeville, Idaho, to her grandparents in another part of the state for 53 cents, the going rate for mailing chickens. May, who rode in the mail car with postage stamps attached to her coat, was safely delivered by a mail clerk. Word of her excursion soon prompted the Post Office Department to forbid sending any human being by mail.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Jun 13, 2008)

blhowes said:


> Don't know how reliable the source, but found this:
> 
> 
> > According to USPS history In pre-World War I days, before the practice was banned, children were sent parcel post. A mother involved in an acrimonious divorce in 1914 shipped a baby from Stillwell to South Bend, Indiana, where its father, who had won custody, resided. For 17 cents, the child traveled in a container marked “Live Baby.” Postal workers saw to its safe arrival.
> ...



Well at least it wasn't a very common practice.


----------

