even the thing up and sent them along. Three or four days'
letters were mailed in this way, but I do not know where they went
to.

Yours very truly,
E. S. SWEET, Postmaster.

The same journal in referring to the Port Hood provisionals makes some
interesting comments which are worth reproduction, viz.:--

This postmaster must be a relic of the anti-confederation regime,
when such mutilations were allowed, as even an entire absence of
the required values would not warrant, under present regulations,
this antiquated process. In such cases the postmaster should
forward the money to the office on which his mail is forwarded with
a request to affix the necessary stamps; he can handstamp or write
the amount paid on each letter if desired, but that is not
necessary. As these fractional provisionals of the Port Hood P. O.
were never issued to the public, but were affixed by the postmaster
and the amount paid stamped on them, they are no more deserving of
collection as postage stamps than the hand stamp or pen mark on an
envelope would be if no stamp or portion of a stamp had been
affixed. If it is asked "Why cut up and affix the stamps then?" the
answer is the postmaster knew no better and wanted to make his cash
account correspond with the total of stamps sold and on hand. He
tried to simplify his book-keeping--nothing more--but went about it
in an antiquated and unlawful way.

While genuine copies of these splits on original covers are interesting
curiosities their philatelic value is not of the greatest importance,
for they were, seemingly, never sold to the public but simply affixed by
the postmaster after he had received payment in cash, to simplify his
accounts. They were certainly not authorised and if they had been
detected at the larger offices they would not have passed as valid for
postage.

In concluding our notes with regard to these cut stamps we reproduce a
letter from the Post Office Department in reply to a collector who had
made enquiry about the validity of the splits:

P. O. Dept., OTTAWA,
_March 30th, 1904._

In reply to your letter of the 24th March, _re_ stamps '1' in blue,
on 1/3 of 3, and '2' in violet on 2/3 of 3 cents, I beg to say that
the Superintendent of the Stamp Branch assures me that no such
stamps were ever issued or recognised by this Department, and i