We will now give our consideration to Postmaster General Hitchcock and the “rider.” I may say some plain, blunt things of him. If so, it is because I believe Mr. Hitchcock’s official action and statements touching the recent legislative move were a deliberate, calculated attempt to ruin some of the greatest periodicals the world has ever known, yes, the greatest periodicals the world has ever known. Not only was it that, but the method and time of presentation in the session, as well as the questionable secretiveness of that official in preparing and advancing the measure, supply reasonably valid grounds for the charge frequently made that this attempt at “snap” legislation was but a step in a conspiracy to throttle the periodical press, to place a muzzle on the most effective means of education which our people have had during the past two decades.

Nationally we have far departed from the mudsill principles of the democratic polity which our founders in their best judgment had framed for us and bespattered the forest paths of the country with their blood to maintain for us—the forest paths not alone of the Atlantic states but also of those vast acquisitions in the West, known in history as the Northwest Territory and the Louisiana purchases, out of which the fathers carved so many imperial states. So far indeed have we departed from those principles, regained from tyranny and maintained for us by the founders and builders of this governmental polity, that their original intent has been lost sight of by many of our people.

As a result of the struggle for subsistence on the one hand and corrupt political practice on the other, we are traveling rapidly toward the old, old way. As the kilted Scots put it, quoting Bulwer Lytton, we are rapidly reaching that view of life which leads men, in the heat of a justified anger, to say “Happy is the man whose father went to the devil;” meaning thereby that our sons can be happy if we manage to steal and loot enough from the government, or from our fellow citizens through governmental favor and protection, to build for those[30] sons stone fronts on “Easy street” and leave a bank balance and “vested interests” sufficient to maintain them.

People happy in the enjoyment of unearned wealth seldom make good, safe or dependable judges or lawmakers for people who are unhappy.

There may be, of course, some rare exceptions to that statement. The history of twenty centuries, however—yes, of forty centuries—has shown very few of them. This may appear to some as a digression from my subject. Well, so count it, if you will. I have made it as a “foreword” for three statements I wish to make—statements cogently asserted in support of an assertion made some paragraphs back.

Mr. Hitchcock, in both action and advocacy, has not only been a conspicuous member, as newspapers and other reports show, but a leading factor, in the gang of “influenced” mercenaries and aspiring politicians who sought to “submerge” certain periodicals which for ten or more years have been telling the people the truth—the truth about crooked corporation practices and about crooked public officials.

I am here going to make those three statements. I believe them statements of fact. Think them over. Study them. If, after, you think I am wrong or overstate the facts, then—well, then, that is your affair, not mine. Remember, I write with a club—not a pencil.

The first of the three statements I wish here to make is: The social and political polity which patriotic and liberty-loving progenitors gave us, established for us, has been adroitly led from its prescribed way. Today our governmental and social organizations are rich in policemen, soldiers, prisons, poorhouses, organized charities, charity balls, owners of unearned wealth and in politicians who helped those owners to acquire that unearned wealth and who furthermore continue to protect them in its possession.

The second statement I wish my readers to consider is: The periodical monthlies and weeklies (and a few “yellow” newspapers), which Mr. Hitchcock and his coterie of conspirators would muzzle or, by laying an excessive mail rate upon them, suppress or ruin—and incidentally, make the Postmaster General an unrestrained censor of the country’s periodical literature——

Those periodicals, I started to say, have given more real educational benefit to the adult population of this country during the[31] past ten years than has been given by all the “little red school houses,” colleges, universities, and churches combined.

I do not, as you will notice, include the “political stump.” I do not care to comment on its peculiar didactic value or fascination for fools. That means both you and me, reader. We each, occasionally, go to hear the political “stumper” tell us a lot of “influenced” lies.

The third statement I wish to make is: Postmaster General Hitchcock is, so far as the writer has been able to learn, a politician. Not only is he a politician, the reports read, but he is a wise, smooth and “ambitious” politician.

That is bad. “Why?” Well, because an “ambitious” politician is about as useful to us, to you and to me, as are bugs in our potato patch, or dry rot in our sheep herd. The “ambitious” politician is a disease, attacking either our kitchen garden or our mutton supply.

“What’s the answer?”

Here is one answer: It is a long way between “three rooms rear and a palace.” But even they who crawl about the earth, begging for leave to live, see things, hear things, feel things, and read things. They are beginning to understand much of what they see, hear, feel and read.

Is that, Mr. Hitchcock, a reason, one of the reasons, why you who have so energetically, likewise offensively, tried to shut us out from our main source of information, from our mental commissary?

Arise, please, and answer.

There are still other remarks which I must make about Mr. Hitchcock’s peculiar recent action and talk. It may not be at all pleasant to him. Yet the statements I shall make, I am ready to support by a “cloud of witnesses.”

As before stated, this attempt to muzzle the press of the country, for that appears to be the ultimate, likewise the ulterior, purpose of Mr. Hitchcock and his coterie of senatorial and other abettors in their recent attempt to outrage the constitutional rights of our people, the constitutional rights of the Lower House and the rules of both Senate and House, as Senator Robert L. Owen, in brief but pertinent remarks in the recent closing days of the late session (February 25, 1911), pointed out,—remarks rife with the cogency of truth.

In a previous paragraph I stated, in effect, that Postmaster[32] General Hitchcock is an “influenced” man or a densely ignorant one. That he is densely ignorant on matters pertaining to periodical publications has been amply evidenced by subsequent quotations from his own reports and letters. That he at least shares the prevailing ignorance as to the methods, and the result of methods, for handling the vast business of the federal Postoffice Department, I have already pointed out.

Possibly I am in error here, but when Senators and Congressmen who have studied for years the methods of handling business in the Postoffice Department were—and are—convinced that it is impossible for the most expert accountants to collect and collate dependable information, relating either to any of its divisions of service or to the department in general; when old and tried students of the loose, wasteful methods of this department, of its utter lack of business system, yes, of its crooks and crookedness—when, I say, such experienced students frankly and bluntly state their complete inability to gather any dependable data as to the business done by Mr. Hitchcock’s department, I am in doubt as to the correctness, or lack of correctness, in my previous intimation that Mr. Hitchcock is ignorant of his departmental affairs and practices, as well as of matters pertaining to periodical publication and distribution.

Mr. Hitchcock has been at the head of his department something like three years, I believe. He has talked so much and written so much about postal “deficits,” about the cause of those deficits and how to remedy them by holding up periodical publishers, that, maybe, he has learned more about his department, more about deficits and the cause of them—learned more about these things in three years than older and more experienced men have learned in ten years—yes, twenty.

Maybe he has. If so, then I was in error when I intimated that his ignorance extended to departmental matters as well as to periodical publishing. If, however, I was in error as to Mr. Hitchcock’s knowledge of his departmental matters, I find myself in a multitudinous and growing company of intelligent and informed people to whom he will have to talk and write much more, and to talk and write far more eloquently, persuasively and wisely than he has thus far talked and written, to convince them that he has accumulated[33] more departmental wisdom in three years than numerous older students of the subject gathered in ten.

What training or opportunity Mr. Hitchcock had, previous to his installation in his present position, to qualify him for the office—training and opportunity which enabled him to grasp so comprehensively, as he would have it appear, the duties, functions, faults in accounting, frailties in the service personnel,—in short, all the essentials of knowledge and information pertaining to a competent administration of the department, general, divisional and in detail, I do not know.

Of course, Mr. Frank H. Hitchcock was chairman of the Republican National Committee in 1908, which committee, with the aid of “a very limited campaign fund,” as one colossally profound “stumper” put it, steered the votes to Judge Taft and himself to his present exalted position. Now, this experience of Mr. Hitchcock may or may not have especially qualified him for ready, quick and comprehensive understanding of all that the Postoffice Department needs to make it yield even a half of what the people of this country are today paying for.

It may have done so. Thoughtful people, however, are numerously entertaining a private opinion, and thousands of them are publicly expressing it, to the effect that, so far, Mr. Hitchcock’s voluminous talk about the affairs, methods, needs and “deficits” of his department displays a knowledge of the subjects he talks about far more comprehensive than comprehending. That is, he has talked assertively or persuasively, as his auditor or audience fit into his purpose, upon numerous departmental phases of administration, regarding which final analysis in the crucible of “plain hoss sense” shows he knows little.

And he knew less when he talked than he now knows. The periodical publishers of the country have been “handing him” some information, after they got notice of what he was trying “to put over,” since he went to President Taft not later than October or mid-November last. I say that, because President Taft covered Mr. Hitchcock’s idea (or scheme) of removing the postal department deficit in his December message for 1910.

Now, did Mr. Hitchcock influence President Taft, or did President Taft influence Mr. Hitchcock?

[34]

That is the question; whether it is better to be the “influenced” or the “influencer.”

The above query may be awkward, or even an uncouth way to state the question, but in evidence that it is a question with thoughtful people—informed people. I desire here to quote some statements written by [1]Samuel G. Blythe. With no thought of discriminating praise I can positively say that Samuel G. Blythe stands with the best of you boys who are doing so much for our enlightenment—FOR OUR EDUCATION—IN MATTERS RELATING TO OUR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.

Is not that right, boys?

I hear a unanimous “aye.”

In this connection, however, I wish to remind you boys that many of you—most of you, probably—have done as much to help the people of the country in your local fields of interest and activity as you have done to enlighten us as to Washington’s politics, policies and tangential peculiarities.

With this explanation for my taking our “Sam” instead of you other boys for quotation, maybe mutilation, just here in the context of this book, I may add that his article in the Saturday Evening Post of date, April 15, 1911, is before me. It so fits the point I am now considering—whether Postmaster General Hitchcock was “influenced” or “influencing”—that I am going to quote, and, possibly, take all sorts of liberties with Mr. Blythe’s splendid presentation of Mr. Hitchcock’s attitude, action and animus.

Mr. Blythe, in his article in the Saturday Evening Post, (published by the Curtis Publishing Company, Philadelphia, and, by the way, one of the most educative weekly periodicals the world has ever known), tells us something of Postmaster General Hitchcock’s procedure since in office.

I am here going to appropriate some of the information furnished in Mr. Blythe’s article. Whether I use quotation marks or not, I want the reader to know that Samuel G. Blythe has “wised me up a[35] heap” regarding our Postmaster General’s peculiar official gyrations since the latter arrived on his present job.

First, it would appear that Mr. Hitchcock arrived with the “deficit” in his brain. I mean, of course, the Postoffice Department deficit was on his mind, and being fresh from that state of splendid attainments and beans—Massachusetts—Mr. Hitchcock came to his job brimful of nerve, purpose and postal service deficits. He was determined to do things, especially to that deficit. Well, he has been doing things, but scarcely in a way that one would expect from a man coming from the people who grow up there. The writer cannot say whether or not Mr. Hitchcock “growed up there.” If he did, some cog must have slipped or “jammed” in his raising. Most born Plymouth rock men whom I have met, and I have had the pleasure of meeting many, start out, and live, on life lines which clearly and cleanly recognize the fact that the end is on its way, and that they are going to meet it—meet it with a brave, honest face and a moral courage that will answer “Here” at the final round-up.

I presume, however, there are a few Easterners who grow haughty, supercilious and dictatorial in proportion to the square of the distance they are removed (by fortuitous circumstance, political preferment or other means), from the “down-row” in the fall husking, the spring plowing, the free lunch and other symptoms of human industry or need.

This is wholly an “aside.” How it may apply to Mr. Hitchcock must be left to readers who have a more intimate personal acquaintance with him than have I.

At any rate, he came to his present official job, it appears from most dependable information, with a “deficit”—the postal service deficit, of course—in his mind, and he immediately began in his vigorous, though somewhat peculiar, way to work it off. Whether his dominating intent was to work that deficit off the department books or merely work it off his mind, has not thus far appeared, save, of course, to the coterie in the circle of Mr. Hitchcock’s intimates and a somewhat numerous body of periodical and newspaper reporters on the job in Washington.

The latter, of course, know everything. And what they don’t know they go to all extremes to find out. It was, therefore, a hopeless attempt of Mr. Hitchcock’s (though he yet seems scarcely able to[36] understand how so much information got to the public), to keep his scheme to remove the Postoffice Department’s deficit by shunting the whole of it onto some twenty or thirty periodicals—it was, I say, a hopeless task for him to keep that scheme safely within the periphery of the corral where herded the “influenced” and the “influencing.”

But why go on? Mr. Blythe in his article tells some things I want to say and he says them so much better than I can tell them that I will give the reader the benefit of that difference and quote him on a number of points. As showing the studied attempt at snap legislation in the very closing hours of Congress, Mr. Blythe says:

The Sixty-first Congress expired by constitutional limitation at noon on March 4th, last. On Friday afternoon, March 3, the postoffice appropriation bill was up for consideration in the Senate. It was being read for committee amendments. At half past 4 page 21 of the bill was reached, and with it the amendment proposed by the Senate Committee on Postoffices and Postroads to increase the rate of second-class postage in certain specified cases and in certain contingencies. Second-class postage is the postage paid by newspapers, magazines and periodicals.

There had been several speeches. Senator Carter spoke for the amendment, and Senators Bristow, Cummins and Owen against it. Senator Jones, of Washington, had a few observations in favor of the amendment also. At 5 o’clock Senator Boies Penrose, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Postoffices and Postroads and in charge of the bill, rose in his place, withdrew the amendment increasing second-class postage, and submitted in its stead an amendment providing for a commission to investigate the question of fact concerning the cost to the Postoffice Department for transportation of second-class mail matter. This amendment was unanimously adopted and the Senate proceeded to the consideration of other sections of the bill.

Postmaster-General Hitchcock sat immediately behind Senator Penrose when this happened. He had been on the floor of the Senate most of that afternoon, and a great portion of the time for several days previous when the discussion of the postoffice bill seemed imminent. When Senator Penrose withdrew the amendment, the Postmaster General’s strenuously urged plan to use the taxing power of the government to make himself a censor, with almost unlimited power to declare what magazine and what periodical should be taxed and what magazine and what periodical should not be taxed; to give himself the sole determining power to decide what is a newspaper and what is a periodical—his long conceived plan, perfected quietly, put into preliminary execution without warning to those concerned, to be jammed through if possible, failed and failed utterly.

Mr. Blythe also refers to the fight Postmaster General Hitchcock put up against investigation. Here I desire to quote him at some length:

[37]

The Postmaster General had enlisted the President. He had put it up to the Republicans on the Senate Postoffice committee as an Administration measure to be supported by administration men. He got the President to use the same argument. He contrived an amendment, after much labor, so drawn as to give him the greatest powers of discretion in the application of the increase in second-class postage. He had the regulation of the magazine and periodical press of this country in his own hands, he thought; and he was preparing to regulate it according to his ideas—when he met with a sudden check. It was a good scheme, a far-reaching scheme, but it didn’t go through. The Postmaster General, being a small-bore politician, took a small-bore view of the situation. He underestimated the force of public opinion.

It is my purpose to tell here the full story of Mr. Hitchcock’s attempt to put through this legislation. Before starting, however, there is this to be said: There never has been a minute, since this contention began, considerably more than a year ago, when the publishers of the country have not been willing to submit the disputed question of fact to a proper tribunal, to determine exactly what it should cost the government to transport second-class mail. There never has been a minute when the publishers of the country have not been willing to pay exactly what, under a businesslike administration of the department, it should cost to transport their publications. They do not desire any subsidy from the government, and never have. The publishers have held that the statement of Hitchcock that it costs 9 cents a pound to carry second-class matter is absurd; and they have further held that if the postoffice department were run on proper business principles, instead of being run as a political machine, there would be no deficit.

Notwithstanding, Mr. Hitchcock fought the idea of a commission to the last gasp. He spent day after day at the capitol, for three weeks before the session closed, in the corridors, in committee rooms, on the floor of the Senate, working for his plan to increase second-class postage, granting concessions here, putting out explanations there, assuring certain publishers they would not be taxed, writing letters to Senators and Representatives showing how their districts or states would not be affected, utilizing every resource of his department, of his political connections as former chairman of the Republican National Committee, to get support. He had the votes in the Senate, too, if he could have brought the matter to a vote. That was where he failed. A united opposition was organized, an opposition composed of men who think and act for themselves and who were prepared to fight until noon on March 4.

When Frank H. Hitchcock, after being chairman of the Republican National Committee in the campaign of 1908, was made Postmaster General as a reward for his political services, he inherited, in his department, a deficit, an antiquated, cumbersome and unbusinesslike organization, and several sets of figures. Hitchcock is young and ambitious. He has been in the government service, in various capacities, most of his life since leaving college. He was anxious to make a record. As Postmaster General he was political paymaster for the administration, to a great degree, as there are more postmasters than any one other kind of public officials, and postmasterships are perquisites of the faithful politicians in the[38] Senate and House of Representatives. This kept Hitchcock in politics, in a way, for he knew what the obligations of the administration were, having made most of them as national chairman, and he paid them off as circumstances permitted.

He thought, too, that if he could put the Postoffice Department on a self-sustaining basis—where it had not been for years, if ever—he would do a great stroke for himself; and he began work along those lines. There need be no discussion here of the methods by which he made apparent reductions in the expenses of the department. Whether by bookkeeping or otherwise, he did make some apparent reductions, mostly by not spending appropriated moneys, by reductions in force, by elimination of substitute carriers and by other similar means.

Mr. Hitchcock, it would seem, was a peculiarly active public servant. Mr. Blythe also speaks of how Mr. Hitchcock got a cue from a predecessor, Charles Emory Smith. Mr. Smith in the industrious activities of his official duties, signing of reports which subordinates wrote, vouchers for contracts and other payments, and drawing his salary—Mr. Smith had laboriously (?) figured it out that the second-class mail rate ought to be 7 cents a pound. Mr. Hitchcock goes Smith two cents better. This statement of Mr Smith’s grew on Mr. Hitchcock. “It opened the way to two things,” as Mr. Blythe ably points out as follows:—

First he could increase the revenue of the department if he could increase the second-class rate; and second, he could get a whip hand over the magazine press.

He reported his assumed facts to the President in time for Mr. Taft’s message to Congress, sent in in December, 1909. In that message Mr. Taft made the statement that it costs the government 9 cents a pound to transport second-class mail matter, the total cost being more than sixty million dollars a year, and asked that there should be an increase in second-class rates. Mr. Taft instanced this as a subsidy for the magazine and periodical press. Mr. Hitchcock’s report as Postmaster General contained substantially the same statements.

The House Committee on Postoffices and Postroads, where the postoffice appropriation bill originates, took cognizance of these statements by the President and by the Postmaster General, and ordered a hearing on the matter, which was held early in the session. The various publishers of the country, representing not only the Periodical Publishers’ Association but many other organizations of publishers of various classes of periodicals, sent representatives to Washington, and there were full hearings before the committee, extending through several days. The publishers stated their side of the case and the committee took the matter under advisement. The House committee reported out the postoffice bill with no recommendation of any kind in it for an increase in second-class postage; and no separate bill providing for the increase was prepared, introduced or reported.

Then Mr. Blythe, under the subcaption of “Running Down the Nine-Cent Myth,” says:

[39]

Some years previously the congress authorized what was known as the Penrose-Overstreet Postal Commission, composed of members of the postoffice committees of the Senate and House, of which Senator Penrose was then the Senate chairman and the late Jesse Overstreet the House chairman. This commission met in various places, had long hearings and made a report and prepared a bill. Before making its report or preparing its bill the commission employed, at a cost of seventy-five thousand dollars, or thereabouts, chartered accountants and business experts to make a thorough examination into the business methods of the postoffice department, its expenditures and its resources. The results of the work of these examiners was incorporated in the report to Congress by the Penrose-Overstreet commission. It is notable that this commission asked the late Postmaster General, Charles Emory Smith, of Philadelphia, who was responsible for the statement that it cost seven cents a pound to transport second-class mail matter, where he got his figures, and he did not remember, nor would he testify concerning them.

At any rate, when the Penrose-Overstreet bill, providing for the reorganization of the Postoffice Department and the placing of that great institution on a business instead of a political basis, was introduced in the Senate and the House, it contained no recommendation for the increase in second-class postage, because the commission had been unable to find any figures of cost of second-class transportation on which such an increase could justifiably be demanded, even after expert examination of the books of the department by unprejudiced men.

Of course, I may be mistaken—I may be. But how, in the name of Jehosaphat, Pan and all the other ghostly deities of antiquity, does it happen that men like Samuel G. Blythe and hundreds of others,—men in position to learn and know the facts, likewise, who have both the ability and the courage to tell what they know—agree with me? Why, I ask, if I am mistaken in what I have said and am trying to say, do so many other men who have studied this question, all of them probably of greater ability, most of them certainly of far greater opportunity than have I, why, I inquire again, do they so unanimously concur in the judgment I am trying to pass on Mr. Hitchcock and his department?

I shall probably take the liberty, later, further to use the data given in Mr. Blythe’s timely and informative contribution, quoting or otherwise, for which I confidently feel he will excuse me. Just here, however, it is fitting that the reader be given a reprint of that night “rider” to which I have made so frequent reference.

House bill No. 31,539 brought the postoffice appropriation bill to the Senate. In the Senate it was read twice and then on February 9, 1911, it was referred to the Senate Committee on Postoffices and Postroads from which it was reported back by Senator Penrose, Chairman[40] of the Committee, “with amendments.” It is only one of those amendments we shall here care to consider. That one appeared on page 21 of Senate Bill (Calendar No. 1067), and the “rider” portion begins at line 7. Following is the “rider:”
(Page 21.)    
7     “Provided,
8     That out of the appropriation for inland mail transportation
9     the Postmaster General is authorized hereafter to
10     pay rental if necessary in Washington, District of Columbia,
11     and compensation to tabulators and clerks employed in connection
12     with the weighings for assistance in completing computations,
13     in connection with the expenses of taking the
14     weights of mails on railroad routes, as provided by law:
15     And provided further, That during the fiscal year ending
16     June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and twelve, the rate of postage
17     on textual and general reading matter contained in periodical
18     publications other than newspapers, as described in the
19     Act of Congress approved March third, eighteen hundred
20     and seventy-nine, entitled “An Act making appropriations
21     for the service of the Postoffice Department for the fiscal
22     year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and eighty,
23     and for other purposes,” and in the publications described
24     in an Act of Congress approved July sixteenth, eighteen
25     hundred and ninety-four, entitled “An Act making appropriations
(Page 22.)    
1     for the service of the Postoffice Department for
2     the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and
3     ninety-five,” shall be one cent per pound, or fraction thereof;
4     and on sheets of any publication of either of said classes
5     containing, in whole or part, any advertisement, whether
6     display, descriptive, or textual, four cents per pound or
7     fraction thereof; Provided, That the increased rate shall not
8     apply to publications mailing less than four thousand pounds
9     of each issue.”

As previously stated, and pointed out by Senator Owen, all amendments of character with the above are clearly in violation of Section 7, Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States. Here is the wording of that section:

“All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.”

That is plain enough, is it not, as to the Senate’s lack of right or power to originate revenue-producing measures either by bill or[41] amendment? A glance at lines 4 to 9 (page 22), as above quoted, will convince even a stranger in a strange town or a market garden delegate that this “rider” amendment, if it had passed, would originate revenue.

Mr. Hitchcock talked, so it is alleged, that it would produce $6,000,000 or more, thus removing that “deficit” he has had in his brain or on his mind. Some of the best qualified men in this country have shown, and they have used Mr. Hitchcock’s own figures in doing so, that the increased mail rate as this “rider” provided would not produce over $2,000,000 additional revenue, probably not over $1,000,000, after paying for the added clerical and inspection service which such a discriminating classification would require.

The reader will note (line 18 of the “rider”), that “newspapers” are exempted from the increased tax. The reader should likewise note that under both this “rider” and the present law, newspapers are carried free to addresses inside the county of publication, save to addressees resident of towns and cities having carrier delivery. By this is meant that this tricky rider, as will be readily seen, leaves the present law—the one-cent a pound rate—in force and applying to all “newspapers.”

Just here I want to ask the thoughtful reader a question or two, though they are somewhat tangential to the direct line of thought we are at this point following:

If such a breach of constitutional law, of the legislative rules governing Congress and of plain, common and understood justice as was covered in this, I believe, studiedly discriminating “rider” on the postoffice appropriation bill—if such a breach was permitted, I ask, how long would it be, do you think, before our newspapers would be made victims of similar restrictions and injustices?

In short, how long do you think it would take the gang of conspirators (the “influenced” and the “influencing” factors in the personnel of the conspiracy) who tried to “put over” that rider, to make any nincompoop of a politician who chances to be, or who may become, Postmaster General a censor of all periodical literature, newspapers as well as magazines, published in this country?

In this connection another thought comes which I desire to pass on to the reader. If such censorship is permitted, such discriminating, abrogative legislation is tolerated, how long will it be, think you,[42] before our “banking interests,” our “steel interests,” our “packing interests,” our “hide and leather interests,” our “rail transportation interests” go into the periodical business?

Each of these have the country covered—yes, flooded—with agents. No trouble whatsoever for them to get the postal department’s required “bona fide” subscription list and thus be “entered” at the one-cent second-class rate.

“Will they carry advertising?” Later, yes.

When our children are paying the cost of our blunder they will be advertising each other and—at the one-cent a pound rate.

Think it over and—well, wake up. If necessary, get cogently brisk with that Senator or Congressman of yours. At least, let him know that you are on the job as well as he and that you understand the job as well as he.

Of course, the “steerers” and “cappers” for this press-muzzling and official censorship game will tell you that such entrance of the “interests” into our literary field is “quite impossible;” that “the postal laws prohibit it;” that “it would be a foolish waste of money on their part,” and a score or more of other equally silly, equally false and equally “steered” arguments.

You can take it from me flat that the man—any man—who hands you that sort of talk is either hired to talk it or he is mentally unsound.

The “interests” are already in the periodical business. They own, or control, at this hour, hundreds of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals. This is a matter of common knowledge to every citizen who reads when he is awake. Not only that, but the interests, banking, industrial, transportation, etc., have gone into the book publishing business (the bound book), and hundreds of thousands of copies of their capping “literature” have been distributed to the people, either free or at a price far below cost of production.

Not only that, but the “interests” are annually (now), distributing millions, in the aggregate hundreds of millions, of circular letters and circular matter, under seal and open circular-matter sheets, pamphlets, etc., first and third class, at a cost of eight cents a pound or more.

So, I repeat, the man who attempts to controvert my previous statement as to the intent, the ulterior motive, of the conspirators[43] backing that rider to the 1911 postoffice appropriation bill is either hired—bought—or is a fool.

It is one of his easiest “stunts” for any writer to produce a “promotion” story or article. For instance: The “Packing Interest,” monthly or weekly, can print three or four “nice” stories. One, say, about “Lucy and Her Window Garden,” another about “High Light Pink, the Broncho Buster,” etc., etc. Then can follow a “literary” write-up of how “Jones Rose From a Wheelbarrow Man to Foreman in a Steel Mill,” or about how “Cruiser Miller Dropped His Blazing Ax and Became Partner in a Great Lumber Company,” etc., etc. After this may come a “Home Department,” and then a few local or “plant” news items.

In the first, your wife and mine will be told how to make her currants (not her currency) jell; how to make children “bread winners;” how to “crochet an art tidy,” or how to “Subsist a Family of Five on Thirty-Nine Cents a Day.”

In the “Local” or “Plant” news may appear some explanation of how Crawloffski, who had lost a leg in service, is “improving in the hospital” (County), and “is under the competent care of the company’s physician,” of the promotion of “Mr. James Field, formerly ‘run-way driver,’ to the position of ‘hammer-man’ in the slaughter pen, with an increase of $2.80 a week in salary.”

Of course, it will be understood that I am not giving the entire scope and plan of an “Interest’s” periodical. The point I am trying to establish is, that no “Interest” periodical will, for a time at any rate, advertise its own interests, save as news matter, and that each “Interest” can and will advertise the others—the mutual interests—and do it, too, at the cent-a-pound rate and without violating any postal law now existent.

I will now return to Mr. Hitchcock’s activity and arguments for this “rider” to that postoffice appropriation bill. I call it “his,” as, from the evidence, I am forced to the conclusion that it originated with him. Most certainly he nursed it and pushed it forward with the urgent solicitude which a fond father would display in advancing his first-born or favorite scion. The excerpts which I have taken from Mr. Blythe clearly evidence that fact.

Mr. Hitchcock is on record as stating that it costs “9.23 cents a pound to transport and handle second-class mail matter.” I am[44] quoting from memory. Maybe he did not include “handling,” and put 9.23 cents per pound as the cost of transportation only. At all events I remember that one writer, with keen perception and a robust sense of the humor of things, as well as the justice involved, pointed out the fact that any of the competing railroads between New York city and Chicago (easily proven to be twice the “average mail haul”), would carry Mr. Taft, our 300-pound “good fellow” President, the “run” at less than 9 cents a pound. Incidentally the writer pointed out these facts: President Taft would have a sleeping berth or compartment, a porter in attendance, smoking room accommodations, likewise barber, manicure, buffet, library and dining-room services and conveniences. The Chief Executive would of course put himself on board and “discharge” himself at the terminal station.

How about 300 pounds of second-class mail matter, say some monthly New York periodical? This is brought to the mail car, wrapped and directed to destination, Chicago for instance, to keep the comparison clear and fair. It is dumped on the floor in a corner of a mail car, with all the intermediate station deliveries atop of it or stacked about it, and at Chicago it is tumbled off to the publisher’s agent or salesman. That is all the service rendered by either the railroads or the Postoffice Department in handling that 300 pounds of second-class mail matter.

Yet the Postmaster General says it costs the government 9.23 cents a pound to render such service!

Is not that rather jarring to one’s exalted opinion of Mr. Hitchcock’s all-round, comprehending knowledge of a just and fair mail haulage rate? If it does not jar the reader he should take his thinking apparatus to the cobbler and have it half-soled.

A glance at freight schedules will show any reader that live stock, cattle, hogs or sheep, are carried from Chicago to New York, Boston or other eastern destination at only a small fraction of his dead-mail rate. Again, while double-deck live stock cars are in extensive use on long hauls, the stock is not corded up on the decks as much of the second-class mail is piled up. Not only that, but the live stock must be watered and fed in transit.

The rail rates for the carriage of dead-freight makes Mr. Hitchcock’s 9.23 cents a pound, which he figured as the cost to the government of carriage and handling second-class mail, read so[45] absurd as to be a joke, were the purpose and purport of his statement not so grave and serious as they are. Even the 4-cent rate that he and a coterie of his friends tried to put over in the Senate rider—$80.00 a ton for carrying dead weights the average mail haul, and dumping it off at destination—is a ridiculous charge.

Why, the express companies are carrying hundreds of tons daily of dead-freight over such average haul for less than a cent a pound; yes, they are carrying tons of second-class mail matter and carrying it at one-half a cent a pound. It has been cited by Mr. Hearst and other publishers that certain railroads carry second-class mail matter over fast freight runs for about one-quarter of a cent a pound. In this connection another thought presents itself: Did, or did not, Mr. Hitchcock, at the time he was pushing his “rider” in the Senate, have any adequate knowledge of the amount, of second-class mail matter which publishers were then sending by express and fast freight? If he had such knowledge, then he must have known of the fact that thousands of tons of periodicals are now carried by the railroads and express companies at a rate lower than the government’s mail charge of one-cent a pound. If Mr. Hitchcock had such knowledge when he was handing his string-talk to President Taft, having his “heart-to-hearts” with certain senators, I wonder if he intimated to them what must necessarily happen to the second class mail division and to that deficit which, apparently at least, has so continuously, likewise so effusively and diffusively, worried him?

If the fast freights and express are now taking thousands of tons of second-class matter from the government in competition with the one-cent a pound rate, how many thousands of tons more would they take from the government if the latter advanced its rate to four cents a pound? And what effect would the withdrawal of so vast a tonnage from the government’s second-class service have upon the deficit our solicitous Postmaster General has kept himself so exercised about—that $6,000,000, or, to be exact, using Mr. Hitchcock’s own figures, $5,881,481.95? That deficit, if converted into cash, would barely furnish parade money to our army for a month. If the Atlantic squadron undertook a junket with such financial backing its progress would probably end by rounding the Statue of Liberty at the entrance of New York harbor. If Mr. Hitchcock’s attempt to put up a four-cent rate on periodicals had succeeded, thus forcing the prominent[46] publishers to find cheaper means of carriage and distribution, his $6,000,000 would have soared upward to a point making it worth very serious consideration.
DEFICITS AFFECTED BY SECOND-CLASS TONNAGE.

In this connection I desire to show that deficits in the federal postal service are largely governed by the tonnage of second-class matter carried, the greater such tonnage the smaller the deficit. To do this I shall take the liberty to quote from the “Inland Printer,” probably the most widely read periodical among the printing crafts, as it certainly is one of the best informed and most carefully edited journals of any in matters relating to the publication and distribution of periodical literature. The article speaks of several points pertinent to our subject and is so instructively written that I know my readers will appreciate it in its entirety. If the publishers of the periodical will pardon my wholesale appropriation of their article, I am confident my readers will do the same. The article is of date March, 1911, and was written by Wilmer Atkinson, whose permission I should also ask for reprinting it in toto:

In 1860 the postal deficit was $10,652,543; in 1910 it was $5,848,566. The postage rate was four times greater in 1860 than now.

Coming down twelve years to 1872 the total weight of second-class matter was that year less than 65,000,000 pounds.

Now it is 817,428,141 pounds, more than twelve times greater.

Then the postage rate was four times what it is now.

Then the gross revenue was $21,915,426; now it is $224,128,657, more than ten times as much.

Then there was no rural free delivery; now that system costs $36,923,737.

Then there were no registered letters; now there are 42,053,574 a year.

Then there were issued $48,515,532 of domestic money orders; now there are issued $547,993,641.

Then postmasters were paid $5,121,665; now they are paid $27,514,362, and their clerks are paid $38,035,456.62.

Then city delivery cost but little; now it costs $31,805,485.28.

In 1872 there were issued of stamps, stamped envelopes and wrappers less than $18,000,000 (there were no postal cards); now are issued, including postal cards, $202,064,887.96, more than ten times as much.

Observe that the weight of second-class matter is 752,428,141 pounds greater than in 1872, costing therefore (according to some official mathematicians), more than 9 cents a pound for transportation, or a total of $67,718,532.69. The deficit for 1910 is almost identical with that of 1872.

[47]

1885-1910

As late as 1885 the government income from the issue of stamps, stamped envelopes and wrappers and postal cards was $35,924,137.70.

In 1910 it was $202,064,887.96, more than five times as much.

The number of registered letters issued in 1885 was 11,043,256; in 1910 it was 40,151,797.

The amount of money orders issued rose from $117,858,921 in 1885 to $498,699,637 in 1910.

The total postal receipts rose from $42,560,844 in 1885 to $224,128,657 in 1910, an increase of $181,567,813.

The postage rate on second-class matter in 1885 was double what it is now.

During the intervening period the weight of second-class matter had increased about 600,000,000 pounds.

Now we will get down a little closer in this business and see what has happened within the last five years.

1906-1911

In 1906 there was a gain in weight of second-class matter of 41,674,086 pounds; in that year the deficit was $10,516,999.

In 1907 there was a gain in weight of 52,616,336 pounds—11,000,000 pounds more than in 1906; the deficit was reduced to $6,653,283.

In 1908 there was a loss instead of gain in weight of second-class matter of 18,079,292 pounds; the deficit went up to $16,873,223, an increase over the year before of more than $10,000,000.

In 1909 there was only a slight gain in weight of 28,367,298 pounds; the deficit went up to $17,441,719.

In 1910 there was a gain in weight of 94,865,884 pounds, the largest ever known; and the deficit dropped to $5,848,566.88.

From 1906 to 1910 there were 198,863,387 pounds increase in the weight of second-class matter; the deficit was $4,668,432.12 less in 1910 than in 1906.

The impression is prevalent that the amount paid for railway transportation was cut down the past year, but the truth is that the railroads were paid $44,654,514.97, the railway mail service and the postoffice car service cost $24,065,218.88, a total of $68,719,733.85, which is more by a half million than was paid in 1909, and over $7,000,000 more than was paid in 1906.

It is claimed that there is no definite relation between deficits and second-class matter; very well, the foregoing are the official figures; let them speak for themselves.

In the whole history of the Postoffice Department, neither an increase of second-class matter nor a reduction of the postage rate has ever increased deficits, no matter what burdens have been piled upon the service in the way of an extension of city delivery, the establishment of rural free delivery, the multiplication in number and increase of pay of officials, increase of government free matter, increase of railroad and other transportation charges, nor an increase in the obstructive energies of postal officials directed against the publishing business. (See In Memoriam, page 49.)

[48]

It has come to be generally understood and conceded that second-class matter originates mail of the other classes. The Postal Commission testifies that “No sane man will deny that second-class matter is the immediate cause of great quantities of first-class matter.” Mr. Madden and Mr. Lawshe said the same thing. Meyer said that “It is known that second-class matter is instrumental in originating a large amount of other classes of mail matter.” To what extent this is so can not be determined with exactitude, but the official figures given throw a flood of light on the subject.

There are four classes of (paid) mail matter—first, second, third and fourth. The first comprises letters and postals, the second newspapers and periodicals, the third circulars, and the fourth merchandise.

How, of themselves, could the first, third and fourth classes develop faster than the growth of population? Does not their extension depend upon the business energy and the intellectual activity of the people, and in turn do not these depend very largely upon the circulation of the public press?

Will it, therefore, be deemed unreasonable to conclude that of the $202,064,887.96 of stamps sold for the first, third and fourth classes of mail matter last year, $150,000,000 of it originated immediately, remotely and cumulatively from the second class? How else than in some such way can we account for the prodigious development of the postal business, which has outrun population sixfold or more?

The late Senator Dolliver, at the American Periodical Association’s banquet, at the New Willard hotel, at Washington, a year ago, said: “I look upon every one of your little advertisements as a traveling salesman for the industries of the United States.”

The amazing development of the industries of the country is in a large measure due to second-class matter; the great increase of second-class matter is due to the low postage rate; and the wonderful expansion of the postal establishment is based chiefly upon the widespread distribution of newspapers and periodicals.

The foregoing figures are respectfully submitted; they are official; and their significance can be interpreted by any intelligent and thoughtful person. In the presence of these figures, is it too much to claim that the government has never lost a dollar in transporting second-class mail, that it is by far the most profitable of any, and that, were it withdrawn or greatly curtailed by an increase of rate, the postal establishment would collapse into bankruptcy?

In view, also, of the foregoing figures it is hoped that the government will assume a less antagonistic attitude toward the publishing business, and encourage and promote the circulation of the public press rather than repress and curtail it. Its obstructive course has been pursued too long, having no basis in justice, business foresight, or common sense.

Let there be a realization and an awakening!

[49]

IN MEMORIAM.

During the last fiscal postal year the death list of publications footed up to 4,229. Of these, 504 died a-bornin, that is, were denied entry; the others—3,725—were papers that had been established.

In the decade from 1901 to 1910, inclusive, 11,563 publications were strangled at birth (denied entry), and of established papers that died there were 32,060.

How many of these were forced to give up the struggle for existence on account of the hard conditions imposed by the government, we have no means of knowing. It is not found in the annual reports. It is beyond question that with sample copies cut off and necessary credit for subscriptions forbidden, no publishers without large cash capital to draw from can start and keep going in competition with old established papers.

Why at this time, when the people are trying to get rid of monopoly, the government should thus build one up, is hard to comprehend.

We are informed that the rule in regard to expired subscriptions “has met with strong approval and continues to grow in favor with publishers and the public generally.” This statement is made by the newly installed Third Assistant Postmaster General, but it is a delusion which Mr. Britt has unfortunately inherited from his predecessor. It may be true as to those benefited by the monopoly, but not as to those who have been put down and out. “Dead men tell no tales.”

I had intended to omit that “In Memoriam.” Then I carefully read it over. The appalling slaughter of the “innocents” which it exposes was so new to me, news of such a tragic nature in the domain of periodical publishing, that I then and there changed my mind. I am of the opinion that the news conveyed in its five brief paragraphs will be as new and as surprising to most of my readers as it was to me. Think of 42,623 publications put out of business in ten years? Of 4,229 sent to the commercial—in most instances, probably, to the financial—junk pile in one year—last year? Then think of the causes this conscientious writer holds chargeable for a large share of the slaughter!
ATTEMPT TO BREACH THE CONSTITUTION.

We will now revert to the bold attempt made in presenting that rider amendment to the postoffice appropriation bill to breach the federal constitution, following which we will take up some of Mr. Hitchcock’s efforts to show how much or how little he knows about the business of publishing and distributing magazines and other periodical literature.

First let us inquire if Mr. Hitchcock and the coterie backing that Senate “rider” knew that, under the Constitution, all measures for[50] raising federal revenue must originate in the Lower House of Congress? One scarcely dares conclude they were so densely ignorant as that. Then, was theirs a deliberate, calculated attempt to breach the constitutional prerogatives and rights of the Lower House? Did they figure upon putting through that vicious rider in the congested closing hours of Congress? I call them the crooked hours of Congress. Did those backers of that rider hope that Senators and Congressmen would overlook or fail to read that rider, hope that so many would be so fully occupied by the swan-song chorus being sung during those closing hours that they would not notice that “rider” jumping the constitutional hurdles?

Now, if either one of the last assigned reasons is valid, a word stronger than “ignorance” should apply to such tricky, treacherous action, whether it is practiced by Senators, Congressmen, cabinet chiefs or chiefs higher up. One greatly dislikes to apply a fitting term to such ulterior motives as lead high and respected public officials to breach the constitution by trickery about on a level with that of the sneak thief or with that of a “con” man who thinks he has done his full duty by the people when he has sold Reuben the painted brick. But how could Mr. Hitchcock and those Senators co-operating with him be ignorant of the plain letter of the law and supported by a long line of precedents in both the Senate and the House?

As to the Senate precedents for the House’s right to originate all measures for the raising of revenues, Mr. Henry H. Gilfry, Chief Clerk of the Senate, compiled in 1871 a work entitled “Decisions on Points of Order with Phraseology in the United States Senate.” Mr. Gilfry cites the attempt of the Senate to repeal the income tax. The House returned the bill to the Senate with a reminder that the Constitution “vests in the House of Representatives the sole power to originate such measures.” Mr. Gilfry cites many other precedents.

In 1905 the Senate tried to originate revenues by amendment to the postoffice appropriation bill. That amendment was very similar to the “rider” of Mr. Hitchcock. I will here reprint it:

“That hereafter the rate of postage on packages of books or merchandise mailed at the distributing postoffice of any rural free delivery to a patron on said route shall be three cents for each pound or any fraction thereof. This rate shall apply only to packages deposited at the local postoffice for delivery to patrons on routes[51] emanating from that office, or collected by rural carriers for delivery to the office from which the route emanates, and not to mail transmitted from one office to another, and shall not apply to packages exceeding 5 pounds in weight.”

The House brought that measure to conference and flatly refused to recognize the power of the Senate in the premises. The Senate receded and the amendment was killed.

“Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives” is a recognized authority. In Chapter XLII, Vol. 2, under the caption, “Prerogatives of the House as to Revenue Legislation,” Mr. Hinds cites many instances in which the House had invariably insisted upon the exclusive exercise of its rights as defined in Section 7, Article 1, of the Constitution.

Mr. Hinds cites in all one hundred and twenty-five precedents, each of which raises the same point of order as was raised in debating Mr. Hitchcock’s late “rider” and on each of which the House maintained its right to originate all bills for raising revenues.

In view of the fact that some of Mr. Hitchcock’s supporters were men of experience, skilled parliamentarians, in view of the fact that some of them were trained lawyers, and in view of the further fact that the works both of Mr. Hinds and of Mr. Gilfry are on file in the reference libraries of the Senate and House and probably in most of the departments, how, I ask, in view of the above facts, can either Mr. Hitchcock or any of his supporters enter a valid plea of ignorance of the fact that their attempt to put over that rider was contravening the constitutional rights and prerogatives of the House?

No, they were not ignorant. In my judgment, as based upon the reports which have reached me, that “rider” was a deliberate frame-up and its architects were a few conspirators who sought by means of that rider either to put certain periodicals out of business or force them to print what they were told to publish.

Possibly I may be in error as to this, but the careful observation of the best informed and most experienced correspondents on the Washington assignment, as well as a number of Senators and Congressmen, have, in reports made, supplied ample evidence to warrant my statement to the effect that there was a collusive understanding among a few people to present that “rider” in the closing hours of the session with the hope that in the rush of affairs it might escape[52] notice and go through. And that hope was born of an ulterior purpose to get even with some monthly and weekly publications—publications of independent thought and voice and which have for several years been telling the truth about certain Senators and Congressmen. These independent periodicals have also been telling a rapidly growing multitude of eager readers the cold, unvarnished facts about some corporations and corporate interests which, it is generally believed and openly charged, are represented in federal legislation and in cabinet and other official circles in Washington by several of the very men who were so actively supporting Mr. Hitchcock in pushing his “rider” over the legislative course.

A brief summary of the history of that rider may be presented at this point. The Penrose-Overstreet bill was before the House in the early part of 1910. It carried no recommendation of an increased rate on second-class matter. This Penrose-Overstreet bill was, however, reintroduced in the House by Congressman Weeks, of Massachusetts, Chairman of the House Postoffice Committee, and by Senator Carter in the Senate. The House refused either to approve or take action on Mr. Hitchcock’s recommendation. After consideration, the Senate approved the House bill. That bill carried no recommendation for an increase in second-class postage rates. Not a single member of the Senate during the debate suggested nor introduced any bill or amendment recommending such increase.

In his message of December, 1910, President Taft recommended an increase in the second-class mail rates. His recommendation was couched in language very similar to that used in his message of December, 1909.

Mr. Samuel Blythe, from whom I have previously quoted extendedly, says some pertinent things in commenting on the situation at this point in our brief outline of how this “rider” got mounted for a lap or two and then was blanketed in the home-stretch:

“The Postmaster General had not been idle in the matter. He had it on his mind. Moreover, his party had been defeated at the polls in the previous November and about the only Republicans who were successful were Progressive Republicans against whom the President had admitted, in his famous Norton-Iowa letter, he had been discriminating and for whom Mr. Hitchcock had no sympathy. The policies, and in many cases the individuals, in the progressive[53] movement had had large support from the magazines and periodicals; and before that, the reactionaries who had ultimately been defeated, had been assailed because of their misdeeds.”

There is a lot of bone and sinew in that. Of course, both the President and his Postmaster General wanted to make good; wanted, as I have previously intimated, to get rid of those pestiferous independent periodicals which had been so conspicuous and powerful in unhorsing some of their stand-pat friends in the elections of November.

Mr. Hitchcock is not one of the sort of men who rush in where angels fear to tread. He is quite a general. He can make the waiting tactics of General McClellan, it would seem, apply beautifully to a political maneuver. He can wait and bide his time. At any rate, he waited. He waited until the President and other friends had worked that announced method of “discriminating” against the progressives, the so-called “insurgents,” to the end of appointing a Senate Committee on Postoffices and Postroads, the personnel of which suited Mr. Hitchcock’s quietly nursed purpose—in fact suited him as well as if he had selected the committee himself. Mr. Hitchcock, however, still waited, and while he waited, the House Committee had been appointed and was engaged in considering the postoffice appropriation bill. This House Committee held numerous sessions and gave hearings to many newspapermen and to publishers of periodicals. It went over the entire field of requirement in the government postal services and appears to have gone into the subject of second-class mail rates and the cost of its transportation and handling most carefully and thoroughly. The result of its deliberations was to tender to the House a bill carrying, as previously stated, an appropriation of some $258,000,000 for the year’s salaries, maintenance and operation of the Postoffice Department, a sum which must certainly appear liberal to any informed reader.

In this connection, two points stand out in bold relief. First:—When the House bill covering the 1911 appropriations for the Postoffice Department was passed and advanced to the Senate, it carried no provision or recommendation for an increase of the second-class postage rates.

Second:—As previously stated the House committee held many sessions while considering and preparing its 1911 Postoffice Department[54] appropriation bill, and at no session of that committee did Mr. Hitchcock urge an increase in the second-class postage rates. He made no propositions or recommendations to that committee touching on increases in the second-class mail rate.

In fact he made no proposition of any sort to that committee. Nor did he submit any statements or figures to that committee, other than those contained in his 1910 report and in the President’s message.

Rather a queer procedure that, is it not? Especially is it queer, likewise suggestive, in a man who, for two years, had been running with anti-skidding tires on and the high-speed lever pushed clear down, in a wild chase to capture an increase in the second-class mail rate.

That is the way it looks to The Man on the Ladder, anyway.

Why did Mr. Hitchcock so completely ignore that House committee? Or why, at most, did his attitude, when present at any of its sessions, manifest so little interest as almost to indicate an indifference as to what was done or not done? Why, again, was Mr. Hitchcock so inactive, so void of suggestions and recommendations when before that branch of federal legislative authority with which he knew must originate all measures for the raising of revenues?

Why? To that question there appears, to The Man on the Ladder, but one valid answer. Mr. Hitchcock was waiting.

When the House bill was sent to the Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on Postoffices and Postroads, it appears from reports of people whose business it is to watch things done and doing at Washington, D. C, that Postmaster General Hitchcock livened up a bit, being careful, however, not to put any noticeable pressure on his high-speed lever until those meddlesome publishers had left town and were well away.

These publishers, knowing the constitutional prerogatives of the Lower House, considered matters safe and settled when the House bill making appropriations for the Postoffice Department was adopted and advanced to the Senate. They knew it carried no section advancing second-class postage rates nor any recommendations favoring such advance. With the publishers that ended it. But they failed to consider Mr. Hitchcock. His wiles and ways were, it appears, neither understood nor even suspicioned by those publishers. So, confident and content, they gathered up their belongings, packed[55] their grips, paid their hotel bills and hied away to their several homes. Then it was that Mr. Hitchcock got busy with that discriminatingly selected committee of the Senate—the Committee on Postoffices and Postroads.

To see how “discriminating” some one or more persons had been in selecting that committee, let us look over its membership. At its head, as Chairman, sat Boies Penrose. He is the reputed Republican boss of Pennsylvania and an “organization” man. So is President Taft an organization man. Therefore Senator Penrose is an Administration man to the last ditch—that is, of course, if the administration is Republican. Mr. Hitchcock is also an organization man, and if both the President and his Postmaster General wanted this “rider” turned loose on the senate tanbark, Mr. Penrose was willing to go along with them. The other members of the committee were:—

Republicans:—

    Scott, of West Virginia.
    Burrows, of Michigan.
    Dick, of Ohio.
    Crane, of Massachusetts.
    Guggenheim, of Colorado.

Democrats:—

    Taliaferro, of Florida.
    Bankhead, of Alabama.
    Taylor, of Tennessee.
    Terrell, of Georgia.

We will scrutinize that list and see how the members fared at the November election. The first four Republicans and the first Democrat as named in the list were defeated at the last senatorial selection—in fact they were repudiated by the states they had been representing or misrepresenting, as the reader cares to take it. As these defeated toga-smudgers attributed their overthrow largely to newspaper and other periodical attacks upon them, Mr. Hitchcock naturally found them in line for anything he wanted to visit upon those offensive publications.

Of the other Republicans, Crane, is reputed to be lugging around with him a large-sized aspiration to be Republican leader in the Senate. If he cashes that ambition, he must necessarily stand pat[56] with the President and Hitchcock, in spite of the alleged fact that Senator Crane does not carry an over-load of esteem for said Hitchcock. The other left-over Republican member of the committee, Guggenheim, would not be worth mentioning were it not for the fact that the methods pursued by himself and his friends in his elevation to senatorial honors have put him in the class almost removed from criticism. Those methods received much caustic consideration from newspapers and other periodicals. Simon Guggenheim, though reputed to be noticeably obtuse in comprehension and decidedly pachydermatous of integument, is probably neither so dull nor so thick of skin as not to have felt and to have remembered the exposure the magazines made of the methods they asserted were used to secure his toga; methods, it was asserted, which virtually bought his “friends,” both those in and those out of Colorado’s legislature. Yes, Simon probably remembers those exposures and the sources from which they emanated.

Entirely aside from that fact, Simon Guggenheim is a dyed-in-the-wool Administration man. In fact, if reports be true, and his record in the Senate appears to justify the reports, Senator Guggenheim could not be other than an Administration man. First, it is said, there are “official” motives and reasons for his being such, and, second, that his intellectual equipment is so out of repair, or so lacking in native operating power, as virtually to disqualify him for any part or position save that of a nonentity in legislative procedure and affairs.

So Senator Simon “Gugg” must necessarily stand with the President and the Postmaster General on the “rider” amendment as on any other proposition they wanted to forward.

As to the hold-over or returned Democratic members of that committee little needs be said as the Democrats were in the minority anyway. Senator Bankhead is quite generally recognized as a congenial, obliging and accommodating politician. In all probability, he would not enter any strenuous objections to Mr. Hitchcock’s proposed amendment, provided a hint was given him that the President approved it. That such hint was handed around quite freely before the committee’s report was submitted to the Senate is a matter of common knowledge.

Senator Taylor first voted for the rider amendment. Later,[57] however, when he neared Jericho, the scales appear to have fallen from his eyes and he then saw things differently. At any rate he later voted against the amendment.

Senator Terrell of Georgia was ill, and therefore not present when action was had. It will be seen, then, that the Postmaster General had his “discriminating” committee.

Mr. Hitchcock began his advance on that committee February 1st. He approached certain of its members on the 1st and 2nd and informed them, in effect, that he wanted them to urge a second-class amendment to the postoffice appropriation bill, which the committee had under consideration. He, it is reported, also assured these senators that President Taft most earnestly desired that an increase be made in second-class rates. He got a committee appointed, consisting of Senators Carter, Crane and others to confer with the President regarding the matter. Owing, however, to the pending of other legislation in the Senate (the ship subsidy bill in particular), the matter dragged along until the 8th of February. During the delay, Hitchcock made sure of the committee by nailing down Penrose, Crane, Burrows, Carter, Scott, Bankhead, Taliaferro, Dick and Simon “Gugg.” On the date last named, Senators Carter and Crane went to the White House “by request” to confer with the President. The President, it is said on authority, flatly told the two Senators that they “must” put the amendment into the bill. It is also reported, and to their credit, that the two Senators argued strenuously against the expediency of inserting it, pointing out the fact that such an amendment would go out on a point of order under Senate Rule XVI. Mr. Hitchcock was present throughout the conference. Incidentally, it may be likewise noted that Vice-President Sherman dropped in, quite “by accident” of course, but he showed no hesitancy, it is said, in participating in the discussion as actively as Postmaster General Hitchcock had been doing from the beginning of the conference. While the President and his Postmaster General were arguing with the Senators to prove to them how important the action was to the Administration; why the “rider” must go into the bill as an amendment, and probably why it was “time for all good organization men to come to the aid of the party,” Mr. Sherman probably dropped a few timely hints to the effect of how easy it would be, with the gavel in his hands and a quick, true and favoring[58] eye for floor recognitions, to get around Senate Rule XVI. In the end, Senators Carter and Crane were won over and a meeting of the Postoffice and Postroads Committee was called for the afternoon of the same day, Wednesday, February 8th, 1911.

When the committee got together it was found that there was not a single proposition of any sort relating to second-class mail rates before it for consideration. Neither was there a written suggestion, recommendation or report bearing upon that subject before them. Mr. Hitchcock, however, was present at this committee meeting. He formulated his proposition and the committee went into session, the discussion being led by Senators Carter and Crane, who had become “convinced” against their best judgment if not against their will, in the forenoon of the same day, to support the amendment. The discussion lasted for several hours, with Mr. Hitchcock’s deficit occasionally buzzing as his wheels went round. Then the committee adjourned until the next afternoon, February 9th.

Mr. Hitchcock left the room after the discussion and, it is said, went immediately and reported to the President. Upon learning that the attitude of the committee was unfriendly, the President at once began to turn on more current, not hesitating to use his patronage club in doing so, reports say.

The committee met, as agreed at its adjournment. Mr. Hitchcock was present with his rider amendment all written up and fully varnished and frescoed, and in two hours Mr. Hitchcock’s rider amendment was tacked onto the bill, in wording substantially as it appears on another page.

Then the real fight began. Hitchcock stood to his embrazured guns, to his reprisal rider, throughout the entire engagement. As an evidence that it was his rider, or his and President Taft’s, I desire here to present to the reader points in proof:

That picked “discriminating” Senate committee had a majority of defeated or otherwise disgruntled politicians. They were defeated or disgruntled because certain independent periodicals had, figuratively speaking, peeled the varnish and smooth epidermis off them, thus exposing their decayed or decaying carcasses to a public not only able to read and understand, but a public willing to read and understand.

I will offer a few other established facts. Mr. Hitchcock, during the closing days of the fight, devoted nearly his entire time to pushing[59] and advocating his measure, his carefully prepared scheme. A canvass of the Senate was made, which canvass led Mr. Hitchcock to believe he had the votes to put his rider over the course a sure winner. In that, however, he was mistaken. A number of the Senators had wised up as to the real purpose and purport of that rider and, in the canvass, they handed back to him a little of his own peculiar brand of jolly, which he had delivered to them in unbroken packages, freight prepaid.

After his canvass, Mr. Hitchcock still kept his oil tank well filled, and his “deficit” playing rag-time to boost his rider along. He even kept his deficit buzzer going after nearly everyone about the Capitol knew that Senators La Follette, Bristow, Owen, Gore, Cummins, Bourne, Clapp, Beveridge, Borah, Brown and others intended to talk his rider into the ditch or talk the postoffice appropriation bill into the Sixty-second Congress.

Yes, Postmaster General Hitchcock, though neither a very competent nor scrupulous tactician, nor an able manager for any large business, industrial or other, is a good fighter. That much must be said for him. When a man fights to the last ditch for a lost or losing cause or purpose as he fought for his “rider,” that man has courage, nerve, whatever we may call it, in him. At any rate it is a quality which commands respect and the man possessing such a quality will receive his just meed of respect wherever men are men.

Mr. Hitchcock worked up a vigorous support for what The Man on the Ladder considers not only an objectionable cause, but a cause viciously dangerous to our form of government, to the material welfare of our people, to their educational advancement as well as to their moral and intellectual betterment.

That is the reason he opposes the purpose of this rider amendment and the methods used to enact it into law. In brief, that is why this book has been written. How Mr. Hitchcock secured a following, even for the brief period his followers followed, for such a cause and the methods used to advance it is as difficult for me to work out or solve as the “Pigs-in-Clover” puzzle or the “How Old Is Ann” problem. He must certainly have learned some new “holds” or tricks in what Sewell Ford calls “the confidential tackle,” or he could not have secured so many “falls” in so short a time for a cause that was bad and for methods even worse, if such were possible.

[60]

Now we will take up the Postmaster General’s somewhat prolific, if not always lucid, verbiage, to prove that he knows more about the publication and distribution of publications than the most experienced and successful periodical publishers have yet learned, however experienced they are and however hard they have striven to familiarize themselves with the many intricacies which the business involves.
FOOTNOTES

[1] Now, see here, Samuel, if you have any knock to make about the liberties I may take with your Saturday Evening Post informative article, knock me, not my publisher. I may quote and even disfigure a little, but I assure you the latter will be far this side of the ambulance.