It should first of all be emphasized that, unlike most other known postal frauds elsewhere, these unauthorized printings do indeed pass muster as genuine collector’s items as, despite being printed on unsized commercial paper whose color and thickness (though usually close) does not always conform to that used variously in printing the five values of the stamps of the 1868 issue, they have otherwise all the accepted characteristics and passed through the mail in substantial quantities, with perfectly genuine cancellations. Thus it is not the collectors who subsequently acquired them in good faith who have suffered a loss (quite the contrary in fact), but essentially it was the Mexican Post Office whose loss of revenue, as will be clear from what follows was very serious indeed; while the ‘wholesalers’ and their associates behind them must have done pretty well, at a minimal, if any, cost to themselves. One question which will probably never now be answered is the actual discount which off takers of sheets of ‘Tipos’, being sold ‘wholesale’ to their commercial and maybe other customers were offering. The Directive of 12 August 1871 refers (see below) to a discount over face value of the stamps “proportionate to the honorarium allowed to postmasters.”

Was this the whole answer, or was this window‑dressing? We do not know what that ‘proportionate honorarium’ may have been, and one can only assume that the discounted cost of such sheets to the end purchaser would have been as close to face value as possible, taking into account that purchasers would not buy if the margin was too fine. Perhaps the off takers simply sold for what they could get as ‘speculators’ (as postal Circulars described them); after all they cannot have paid very much for them, if anything, even if they may have been concerned at the prospect of being left with large stocks on their hands if the postal fraud was somehow checked unexpectedly.

The system used to defraud was so simple yet so ingenious that for over a century, the experts were consistently deceived into believing that these unusual overprints represented some kind of special issue even though there was some argument as to the precise reason for having one. The view that eventually prevailed was that enunciated by the great English collector, Samuel Chapman (who was himself an accountant and had lived in Mexico for many years) as follows:

“At this time there was no way of sending small sums of money through the post by way of postal order, so that for subscriptions to newspapers or reviews, stamps were used and these would be noted in the standard stamp debit register. When the stamps were presented to the Mexico City post office to be exchanged for cash, it would then appear that the amount of money in the postal service had been overestimated, and, with the object of replacing the sums disbursed in this way, a quantity of stamps to equivalent value was printed on special paper (the 25 centavos are on thin paper, and the 12 centavos blue-green or sea-green), and as a great many stamps were used in Mexico City, these special stamps were put into the postal service of that city. In this way, the actual revenue received was balanced against the postal service rendered. The same thing happened in Vera Cruz, but less often …. The question is a very difficult one, and may only be solved by the publication of the postal records, something which I hope will happen on Senor Cossio's initiative” (it didn't.)

There is no evidence whatever that any such special issue was ever contemplated, let alone authorized. It is thus particularly unfortunate that until Roberto Liera pioneered the exposure of how the great ‘Tipos’ postal fraud came about, collectors and dealers alike had been completely misled for more than 40 years as regards the ‘Tipos’ by Chapman even though at that time he was not the recognized specialist authority on aspects of the 1868 issue. The note above was written by Chapman to the Marquis de Fayolle as a result of which the misleading entry appears in the classic ‘Premières Émissions du Mexique’  by de Smeth and Fayolle, published in 1935. Abraham Odjfell, writing in 1955, was similarly misled.

To understand what really seems to have happened, and what the ‘Type of Mexico’ overprints actually amounted to, it has to be remembered that, since the first issue of stamps in Mexico in 1856, the postal administration had operated a unique system whereby, to obviate the danger of theft on the road, each district postmaster on receipt of a consignment of stamps from head office in Mexico City, was obliged to validate each one by overprinting with a hand stamped district name before it could be used for franking purposes and sold across the counter or distributed to district sub-offices. During the Maximilian period of the French occupation (1862‑67), a further security measure was introduced whereby, before dispatch from head office, the consignment of stamps was overprinted with each invoice number, together with each year date on every stamp.

On June 21 1867, with the establishment of the Second (or ‘Restored’) Republic under Benito Juarez, Mexico was in a state of great internal turmoil with an empty treasury and the postal system outside the capital at almost a complete standstill; and in the absence of any new stamps, the old worn 1856 plates were brought back into temporary service to print stamps in faded colors, while in the provinces provisional stamps were introduced here and there or the old ‘Sello Negro’ ‘Franco’ cancels used in pre‑stamp days put back into service.

Although it took 15 months to appear, the new 1868 postal issue, in 5 values and showing the full face of Father Hidalgo, was finally introduced in September that year, using homemade and somewhat difficult lithographic processes in a brave attempt to get the postal system working again so as to earn some profit for government revenues. Instead of overprinting invoice numbers, control numbers were allocated to each postal district in a series from 1 to 41 and typeset, along with an abbreviated year date along the right hand vertical side of each stamp before dispatch from Mexico City. It was then the responsibility of each district postmaster as before, to superimpose on the arrival of a consignment the name of his district by handstamp, usually on the opposite left-hand vertical edge of each stamp. Provided that each stamp had a valid district handstamp superimposed, it was permissible for purchasers, under the original postal regulations of 1856, to use it in any other postal district i.e. for a stamp purchased, say, in Guanajuato to be carried into the Lagos postal district and put through the post there. Apart from occasions when due to a local shortage stamps were moved from one district to another under instructions from head office, and a few regular exchanges such as these between the adjoining postal districts of Orizava and Cordova,  there was not much traffic of this kind however by 1868, not least because communication between the districts outside the capital had often became poor or even non‑existent.

In fact the postal accounting system in Mexico had up to this point proved remarkably honest and punctilious in the difficult circumstances of the time; and in particular invoice records of consignments of stamps and returns were carefully kept. Furthermore, to prevent any fraud, a decree of 17 July 1856 had provided that after printing had taken place at the printing house at head office in Mexico City, all stamps should be sent to the Finance Ministry (Hacienda) who would then furnish them to the Postmaster General on demand; on receipt these would then be counted and placed in a special vault to which the key was held by only three senior executive officers of the post office. Nevertheless, once they had gained access to the printing stones, those involved in the swindle evidently managed to beat the system, presumably by arranging for sheets of stamps to be switched directly out of the printing house, and then imposing on them fraudulent typeset year date and district numbers, together with the district names which would normally have been hand stamped by local district postmasters. Although the forgers evidently had no direct access to the format which overprinted the genuine year date and district number before the sheets were made up into consignments for districts, they managed to imitate most of these overprints quite closely. The main difference usually lies in the gap between the year date and the district number; this is generally 14 mm whenever a double digit district number occurs, e.g. on 10 to 41, or 16 mm for the single numbers 1 to 9, as regards the genuinely overprinted stamps. The forgers on the other hand produced gaps which, with the notable exception of the ‘Mexico 1 - 70’ overprints, only rarely conform to the genuine pattern, and range from 12 to 18 mm instead.

As for the lettering of the forged district overprints, this is usually marginally narrower and shorter than the genuine article, due to the use of commercial type rather than any handstamp. Nevertheless great pains were evidently taken to try to imitate the originals as closely as possible. No less than 29 district overprints, out of a possible total of 41, were forged in this way, with many variations; and the forgers must have been assisted in avoiding discovery by the fact that, due to losses or renewals of many district handstamps locally at the time, districts were themselves experiencing genuine variations of their own, thus making it that much easier for the ‘Type of Mexico’ overprints to pass through the mail without suspicion.

For reasons best known to themselves, but possibly as some form of identification, the forgers seem at first to have made a point of inverting overprints by typesetting the district number and the ‘70 date (or very rarely the ‘69 date) at the left side of each stamp, with the district name on the right. This practice does not seem to have lasted long however perhaps because of the risk of discovery and many ‘70 and all ‘71 ‘Type of Mexico’ overprints are to be found the normal way round. There are no known forged ‘72 overprints though printings of the 25c are known to have been made by the forgers from Stone ' I ' (which was only in use in the first quarter of 1872) overprinted ‘71’.

From available evidence, it looks as if about 85% of the forged stamps, whatever district name they ostensibly bore, were used by firms in the capital, and canceled ‘Mexico’, with a further 10% used similarly in Vera Cruz and the balance of 5% or so used variously in Guanajuato, Puebla, and San Luis Potosi, with a few to be found canceled from smaller towns such as Jalapa, Queretaro and Tampico. Of the 12 centavos, about 25% may have been used outside Mexico City, while of the 25 centavos only about 10% were so used. Almost all the forged 50 centavos were used in the capital. Covers bearing the ‘Type of Mexico’ overprints (sometimes carrying perfectly genuinely printed, overprints as well) are quite scarce, and almost invariably show a firm's merchant cachet.

Presumably because the 12, 25 and 50 centavos stamps were most in commercial demand, the forgers concentrated on producing them using a sea-green paper (in addition to the normal green paper) to some extent in 1870 for the 12 centavos, followed by a blue-green paper in 1871; blue, or more frequently blue on pink paper for the 25 centavos (similar to the genuine article), and a straw, or sometimes lemon shade instead of the standard yellow 50 centavos paper. Used 6 centavos ‘Type of Mexico’ on brown paper on the other hand are only known with forged Queretaro or Tulancingo overprints; while the 100 centavos dark brown ‘Type of Mexico’ is only found with a bogus Gothic type ‘Mexico’, ‘Morelia’, ‘Queretaro’, or ‘Saltillo’ overprint, usually on thick or carton paper; all are considerable rarities. All these colored papers could easily have been purchased locally by the fraudsters in the open market.

Apart from those commercial firms who may have knowingly connived with the racket, the forgers presumably reckoned that any innocent purchasers, even at a discount, would not be able to distinguish the forged overprints of provincial districts from the genuine, or even if they could, would not care, especially if it was represented to them that this was some kind of special issue or postal return. In any case, as soon as these stamps were purchased by anyone, the forgers could feel safe from discovery. Firms accepting these stamps as payment for debt for instance would use them on their correspondence in good faith, and in the unlikely event of being challenged would be able to say that it was impossible to identify the source of the counterfeit overprints amongst so many other genuine ones. Varieties in color or paper thickness (the 25 centavos ‘Tipo’ is often found on very thin ‘pelure’ paper) would not be noticeable once on cover and in the mail.

It cannot have been long however before that part of the postal administration not involved in the fraud began to suspect that something was very much amiss, if only because sales of the commonest denominations in demand in the capital were seen to be falling off markedly from 1870 onwards. From 86,000 12 centavos stamps sold in Mexico City in 1869 for instance, deliveries declined to 63,050 in 1870 and to 62,250 in 1871; similarly deliveries of 25 centavos stamps declined from 140,700 in 1869 to 114,150 in 1870, and to 93,400 in 1871, just at the time when consumption should have been rising as some prosperity began to return and business picked up. Deliveries of 50 centavos similarly halved themselves over the period from 25,620 in 1869 to 12,750 in 1871.

Taking these figures into account, in terms of value it can be roughly calculated that, at a conservative estimate, the postal administration must have been losing to the fraudsters about 35% of their annual potential in stamp sales in the capital.

If further proof were needed of the effect of the fraud on Post Office finances generally across the country, the record of official deliveries to district bureau on a month by month basis, compiled from hitherto unpublished material from the Ruiz Perez archive shows all too clearly how, following an evidently rising trend in 1868/9 as the economy began to recover, from October 1869 the requirement for those stamps normally most in demand (i.e. 12c, 25c and 50c) remained virtually static, or actually fell; while demand for the 6c, with which the fraudsters barely concerned themselves, actually rose by an astonishing 80% as between 1870 and 1871.

Nothing of this kind had evidently been anticipated in any of the circulars sent out to district postmasters by the Administrator of Posts (Postmaster General) from the inception of the issue. These mostly related to the re-establishment of the service after its unprecedented and almost complete breakdown in 1867, to the many complaints being received in those years from newspaper editors about non-delivery, overcharging or inefficiency generally, and the need to observe honest and loyal behavior on the part of postal employees in the future. To sense a little of the atmosphere at the time amongst the post office hierarchy, especially over the use and abuse of the old ‘Sello Negro’ franking cancel, not to mention the overall difficulties they had to face and surmount, Post office Circular No.23 of 3 August 1868, sent out just a month before the new issue was due to appear, provides an example; there is no hint in it however of any of the much more serious abuses which were to come.

“Administration General of Posts Circular No.23 (of 3 August 1868).

Under separate cover, I am sending you the handstamps which are to be used to frank mail in your principal district and its subsidiaries, in accordance with the decree of 21 February, so far as it is still in force, and of 15 July of the same year (1856) which accompanies it.

The use which ought not to be made of the handstamp, in conformity with Article 23 of the Regulations, is that of placing them on top of the official ‘Sello Negro’ (black franking cancel) which indicates the mail dispatch date. The franking of periodicals which respective editors leave with the post office should simply be indicated using the ‘Sello Negro’; but printed matter sent by private individuals should be franked by the corresponding stamp.

Mail originating from offices which have free franking, according to Article 6 of the decree of 21 February, should be franked with the ‘Sello Negro’, dated prior to that which the office from whence it proceeds should have sent mail. No other class of correspondence will be directed forward without the stamp which proves its payment, and whatever may be received without this requirement, the Administrator of any office which forwards it will have its value deducted; notifying you also that the Revenue Office and the Director of Roads may also be considered amongst those who figure under Article 6, as you have already been informed in earlier circulars.

Correspondence addressed to employees of the branch in current employment which may be presented at post offices should be considered as of an official nature, and will be dispatched franked only with the cancel of the said post office and without using stamps; taking care that under the guise of this concession it is not abused by the dispatch of letters entrusted by other people.

May I remind you of the warning which exists that under no circumstances may stamps of a higher value be cut so as to cover a lower postage rate, but that those stamps as indicated precisely in the respective tariff should be affixed up to the value required.

May I also remind you of the warning that the envelopes in which stamps are sent, which will go registered and with the inscription ‘Stamps for franking’ should be opened in the presence of an inspector, and in Administrations where there may not be such employees, they should invite the head of the local finance department to be present at the opening and to count them, and where there are no such officials, they should invite someone similar from the political authority.

Having overcome the difficulties with which the Administration General has struggled for so long in order to be able to reorganize the postal service, on account of the disorder brought about by the foreign war, and established the engraving office there should be no reason for any lack of handstamps nor any excuse for using the 'Sello Negro'; and in order to avoid this in the office under your charge, you will take care, as part of your responsibility to make timely requests for stamps so that there is no shortage of them for use in your office and those of your sub-districts.

I apologies for recommending watchfulness to you in all the activities of your office so as to avoid carelessness and delay, with all due efficiency in the delivery and reception of mail for your employees and postmen, as the franking system previously required a high degree of confidence in the loyalty of postal employees; and to expedite the service, whatever doubt may occur to you will be quickly overcome as prudence and your knowledge of the branch may guide you, and as long as you consult this headquarters and you are being given advice accordingly.

You will acknowledge receipt of this circular, of which I enclose enough copies for your subsidiaries.

Independence and Liberty, Mexico, August 3,1868 - Luis Gutierrez Correa, Administrator General of the Post.”

Just three years later, after what must have been several months of anxious cogitation at the highest level, and with a preface from President Juarez himself of an unprecedented kind, there appeared the strongest directive ever to have been sent to the Postmaster General from the Ministry of the Interior (Gobernacion) via the Governor of the Federal District; it was this Ministry, and not the Finance Ministry (Hacienda) which had since 1863 controlled postal administration policy when it had been designated as a public service and not merely a source of potential revenue.

The full text of this imposing directive dated l2 August 1871, together with its relevant provisions, is reproduced in translation below (the underlining which give clues to the true situation, are mine, and not those of Gobernacion). Its purpose needs a little more explanation. While ostensibly the Post Office is charged with neglecting the complaints of newspapers and journalists, the main problem is, without any proper definition, stated as being the ‘wholesaling’ of stamps by some postmasters at a discount, allegedly resulting in large holdings in private hands, this being likely to lead to the collapse of the service itself. This, even if it turned out to be true, would at first sight hardly seem to be at all relevant to the usual newspaper editors’ complaints outlined above. One can only conclude that this directive was basically an elaborate piece of window‑dressing, containing important information to alert postmasters to the situation whether or not they were in the ‘Tipos’ racket), but designed to put anyone else who might come across this official document off the scent. It is perhaps noteworthy that when the Postmaster General actually distributed this document to his district postmasters on 4 September 1871, he did not dwell on any aspect of this so‑called ‘wholesaling’ let alone on any of the alleged shortcomings of some of his postmasters in doing so. Instead possibly to avoid putting any hint of scandal on paper in this respect this comments merely went off the main subject by explaining in some detail how journalists in the provinces could be reimbursed when they turned in their presumably ‘wholesale’ stamps (i.e. ‘Tipos’) for cash.

These obscure references to large holdings of stamps unused in the hands of the public who had apparently bought them at a discount must have confused many district postmasters not in the racket at the time, who must have wondered why if these holdings had indeed been sold through post offices there should be any real cause for financial concern; after all it was not the use of such stamps but their purchase which was relevant. Why should the sale of stamps at some discount or other produce a situation in which the post office might become ‘incapable of carrying out even its most important requirements’?

And why on earth, they might well ask, would any postmaster be in the least interested in selling sheets of the 1868 issue wholesale (i.e. at a discount) ‘proportionate to the honorarium to which he was entitled by law’, to quote the directive of 12 August 1871, when, assuming that the stamps had been genuinely printed and issued, there could be no possible advantage to him financial or otherwise in his doing so.

In any case, the provisions of this circular for a new issue and for amortization by exchange of stamps of the 1868 issue in public hands remained unenforceable for nearly 6 months, until the new issue finally appears in the first days of April 1872. This delay may have been partly due to lack of funds appropriated by the authorities to deal with several civil disturbances which had to be suppressed, but also because it was stipulated that, as a security measure, the new issue was to have a special moiré printing on the reverse of a kind not previously used. But this delay could also have been due, as intimated below, to a deliberate move on the part of the Postmaster General to get at least some of the lost revenue back in the interval. Meanwhile ‘Tipos’ continued to appear, with their bogus overprints, used or unused.

“From the Secretary of State and of the Office of the Ministry of the Interior (Gobernacion), 12 August 1871.

On this day, I say to the citizen administrator general of the post office as follows:

The President of the Republic has had his attention drawn to the continuous complaints which the press are directing against the postal service, and as he wishes this branch to be recognized by law under the care and protection of the Supreme Government, and, it being for that very reason under a duty not only to observe the strictest security in the conduct of correspondence but also to enhance its development by the introduction of whatever methods may as a result provide some betterment to the public good, has called for an examination into the state which the post office actually maintains, with the intention of suggesting steps within its means whereby to remove the abuses which there could have been, and at the same time obtain some improvements to this important branch of the Administration.

Considering that the security of the mail is the first objective to be striven for, fulfilling in this way the constitutional principle which provides for it; and that it is declared in the Constitution that official correspondence sent through the post offices is inviolable, for that very reason the President declares absolutely that under no pretext may any examination take place without committing a serious offense; that in order to proceed with reforms which could be introduced into the postal service, it may be necessary to grant it funds in advance in order to be able to incur expenditure which may be required, as its proceeds, which are the only funds which can be taken into account in being able to cover its requirements, are hardly sufficient for its basic needs, without there remaining any surplus capable of being applied in order to undertake any proper reform.

Considering that it is noted that these same proceeds for some time until now have undergone a considerable reduction, which circumstances cannot be overlooked without a serious as well as a real danger in what may one day amount to the post office becoming incapable of carrying out even its most important requirements; that amongst the causes which have brought about this considerable reduction in the income of the post office, the main one may be reckoned to be the existence on a large scale of stamps in private hands, to the extent that their retailing, notwithstanding that this is obtained by sacrificing a considerable part of their value, is nevertheless becoming a matter for speculation.

Considering that this has its origin in the abuse which some administrators commit by selling wholesale stocks of stamps which they receive at a discount proportionate to the honorarium to which they are by law entitled, and in the system which editors of all kinds of publications put into practice whereby their correspondents send them their stocks of cash in the form of postage stamps so as to sell them at the considerable discount which the speculators demand; that the post office could very well be a secure office for exchange for editors of publications without damaging their interests, which security may be extended to certain poor people who, having some small quantity to exchange, in view of its paucity have difficulty in obtaining the amount they claim in the market place, whereby this would provide a service to the poor and working class in our society.

Considering that the sale of stamps wholesale is not only not authorized by the law which previously established franking, but its spirit openly opposes this abusive and prejudicial practice.

Considering that amongst the abuses which contribute to producing a reduction in post office revenue may also be counted those which some officials of the branch commit by using the 'Sello Negro', and that the franking concession given to postal employees for their mail has been extended to those sending them letters.

Considering that, according to the law, payment for ‘Extraordinary’ mail should be made by the office or authority who called for it, and that since the mail is purely and exclusively a service for the public, for the very same reasons there is no legal provision whereby the Federation should not pay for the cost of the ‘Extraordinario’ which it may require.

And considering finally that given the remedy for the evils which have been pointed out, of the means of the administrative authority, and that once the remedy is found, it is certain that by this action alone the revenue of the post office should increase by no less than forty per cent of that at present obtained, which will make it much easier to get a favorable outcome for the initiatives relating to the reduction in charges for printed matter and mail, which have been directed by the executive of the Union Congress; on account of all these considerations, the President of the Republic has agreed to the following provisions:

(Extract)

Provision 7. The Administration General of Posts will shortly proceed to make a new issue of stamps for franking, of a different type and color from that which exists at present.

Provision 8. In order to know what quantity of stamps is being held in private hands, and to arrange for their amortization, a period of one month will be fixed in each cost office so that holders may have the opportunity of exchanging them for those which are to be newly issued.

Provision 9. Stamps which were remitted by way of the Administration General will only be accepted for use in the area of the principal office to which they are sent, whereby the Administration General will take care that they are perfectly distinguished.

Provision 10. The sale of stamps wholesale is absolutely forbidden. In future, editors of all classes of publications, whenever they want to exchange their stocks for cash through the medium of the post offices, will have to arrange for their correspondents to present these to the respective principal district office, collecting a receipt to match from it, and this document will be used to be paid afterwards by the Administration General, at a discount so much per cent less than the current market rate. A similar procedure will be applied by the main district post offices in relation to the receipt which, in similar cases within the area, the sub-district administrator may give.

And with the agreement of the President of the Republic, I have the honor to communicate the above to you for your information and so that on your part it may serve to provide you with the corresponding publicity.

Independence and Liberty, Mexico, August 12, 1871 Castillo Velasco, Governor of the Federal District [of Mexico]”

Dated 4 September 1871, the new Governor of the Federal District, C. Alfredo Chavero, duly sent the directive of 12 August to the Postmaster General, who distributed it immediately to district postmasters, as follows: Post Office Circular No 13 of September 4, 1871.

“I enclose copies of the supreme directive issued by the Ministry of the Interior on 12 August last, concerning various reforms to the service of the postal branch. For a better understanding and practice in their enforcement this Administration sends you the following notice:

(Extract)

 “As soon as the new stamps are issued with their change in design in substitution for the present ones, instructions will be sent to you as to directive provisions Nos. 7, 8, and 9.

In executing Provision No. 10, the sale of stamps for any other purpose than for franking correspondence (as set out in Article 2 of the Law of 2l February 1856) of course remains prohibited. Whenever correspondents or agents of political or literary periodicals may however present you with a quantity of stamps to be sent to their respective editors, you should accept it as it is, debiting it as assistance to the general administration, and giving the person concerned a receipt, describing the publication to whom the payment is due, so that on its presentation, it may be paid charged to the office which remits it. On this basis, you will give instructions to your district sub offices inclusively, so that they may give receipts relating to periodicals debited against their head district office, with the effect that the latter should pay, charging it to the post office which remits it, or they may exchange it for money to the holder of the said receipt for another one charged against this head office, so that the good order of the central account is not impaired, and it may prove its worth by facilitating the transfer of their funds by the said journalists, which is the principal purpose in mind for the provision referred to. As a general rule, it may be stated that commission on the transfer of the money will not be collected by the office which receives it, but by that which carries out the payment.

In order to carry out Provision No. 11, whenever someone wants to exchange any small quantity of money, he should present it to the respective Administration General, collecting from it a receipt to match, in which document should be stated the amount received, the office which should pay it, the name of the person who has presented it, and the person who should receive it. Such an exchange can only be accepted at present between the head office, the principal district offices, together with designated sub‑offices, for up to 25 pesos. As regards any commission on the exchange, the same considerations apply as set out in the previous provision.

(At end)

If any other doubt should occur to you regarding the provisions to which this circular refers, you should consult to find a corresponding solution; and meanwhile you should acknowledge receipt, and inform all your sub-offices, for which purpose I enclose reliable copies.

Independence and Liberty, September 4, 1871. Luis Gutierrez Correa. Administrator General of the Post Office."

“Administration General of the Post. Circular No.15 (of 9 September 1871).]

So that there may be uniformity in the documents which the principal administration of the branch and its subordinates issue, so as to give effect to Provisions 10 and 11 of the Supreme Directive of 12 August last regarding the exchange of funds, examples are enclosed for you of the main receipt form and its duplicate, so that you may distribute them carefully amongst the sub‑offices in your district, keeping at least a quarter of them for use in the principal district office in your charge.

It should be pointed out that the said offices, in each individual case, on issuing a receipt, will mark it with a corresponding serial number, and validate it with the appropriate office handstamp, applied in the margin of the receipt, in the place designated for the purpose.

In addition you should note on the back the amount deducted as a result of changing the place of payment.

Finally it should be mentioned that in offices where there is an auditor or official who takes his place, he should sign jointly with the administrator.

All that I state here is to be carried out most punctiliously, expecting that your acknowledgment of the receipt will be in the same manner.

Independence and Liberty, Mexico, 9 September 1871. - Luis Gutierrez  Correa, Principal Administrator of the Post.”

It is interesting to speculate why ‘journalists’ (i.e. essentially newspaper correspondents in the provinces in those times) should have been so specifically favored. The last paragraph of Circular No. 5 of 29 February 1872 (translated later) in its reference to a Circular No. 18 of 30 November 1871 (which does not appear to have survived) gives a hint in saying that a monetary exchange for journalists had thereby been allowed. It might be assumed therefore that, as a special exception, such ‘journalists’ had been authorized to turn in their ‘Tipos’ (presumably sent to them in sheets by their newspaper proprietors in Mexico City) to district postmasters so as to get their full face value back in cash to pay for their salaries at the expense of the Post Office. It does not seem beyond the bounds of possibility that, in these troublesome times, such a deal could have been struck in exchange for a commitment from the newspaper proprietors that they would give no publicity to the scandal about which they would have known, and been perfectly capable of publicizing had they wished to. Without any firm evidence, it would be wrong to draw any such unsavory conclusion, but it does seem quite extraordinary that the general public remained unaware of what was going on for more than two years, when newspapers would have been the obvious way to expose the scandal; and it was not until the new stamp issue had been more than a month in use, in May 1872, that the Postmaster General alerted even his district postmasters officially that there had been fraud.

But in any case it seems to have been this distinctly Byzantine way of dealing with this appalling problem without bringing the Post Office totally into discredit, which left district postmasters to draw their own conclusions, or, as the Postmaster General had invited them to do, to consult with him privately later on as to what had really happened. No wonder that there were no other circulars which bore directly on the subject until May 1872. As for the journalists, their option to cash in their ‘Tipos’ disappeared, as will be seen, once the 1868 issue was completely demonetized; another and much more stringent means of providing them with their salaries in the provinces, through the Post Office, was not adopted until the very end of 1872, by which time the new issue had been in use for more than six months, and there could be no fear of a ‘Tipo’ repetition.

“Administration General of the Post Office, Circular No.19, (of 31 December 1872)

Dated on the 18th of this month, the Ministry of the Interior stated the following:

The President of the Republic has approved the basic proposals in your official Note No. 289 of 30 November last in order to re-establish the exchange of newspaper companies’ funds. The basis on which the enclosed communication are founded are the following:

1. Drafts will be sent from the Administration General to the principal district offices, and thence to their respective sub-offices by means of money orders which they will give to journalists an corresponding stamped paper, drawn on their correspondents or agents, so that before being advised that, the payment has taken place, the drawer may be satisfied that it is valid.

2. The money orders will be made out in favor of the correspondent or agent to whom journalists submit their claim accounts every quarter or fourth month, and not directly in favor of their adherents (‘suscritores’), as the post office cannot turn itself into a collector of outside claims for small monthly amounts.

3. The post office will collect from journalists a standard commission for the exchange of funds, to repay it proportionately for the cost which it must incur in the course of transferring money from one place to another, as there are places where such transfers may be difficult, except when using expensive means.

4. The post office will be able to make payments to journalists up to 15 days after the receipt of information from its respective office, once the collection of the letter has taken place, because should there be insufficient funds in your safe, you should have time to negotiate outside supplies, and thus avoid the discredit which could occur in the event of any delay.

I am copying this to you for your information because of the drafts which may begin to arrive from this head office, to be sent to your respective sub-offices.