I have before me the Postmaster General’s report for 1910. It presents a large amount of information both in statistical tabulation and in “straight matter.” A portion of the former, however, leaves the average lay mind rambling around in circles, wondering what in the name of all that is lofty it was compiled for, what service value it can possibly have and what was the ailment from which the fellow who compiled it suffered; that is, was his a case merely of bad liver or indigestion, or a serious case of ingrown intellect, struggling to help his fellowmen know how real dizzy and foolish tabulated figures can be made to appear?

Mr. Hitchcock in this 1910 report has separated himself from some striking oddities, about as serviceably valuable as a smoking compartment would be to a laundry wagon. Of course, it may be that Mr. Hitchcock did not write the division of this report signed by him. Some talented secretary, clerk or assistant may have cranked it up. However that may be, do not let what I here say deter you from looking through this 1910 report should it come your way. It contains a variety of excellent things, some valuable information, well collated and intelligibly presented. The foolishness and fooleries in it are—well, they are of the kind common to all, or at least most, departmental reports, federal, state, county and city. Much of the tabulated “statistics” in each can have no possible service value either in this world or the next—even assuming that statistics and statisticians will be recognized at all in that division of the “next” to which we all aspire.

As to the “straight matter” in these departmental reports, one often finds in it some most excellent suggestions, as is certainly the case with Mr. Hitchcock’s 1910 production. One also finds a lot of other suggestions and space-written stuff that would make a totem laugh—that is, of course, presuming a totem could laugh and had advanced as far as the third grammar school grade in reading.

And the “literary style” of these official reports; so aerial in elevation, so officially dignified in “tone,” so profusely profound or[78] profoundly profuse in elaboration and detail, and often so trivial in significance or import!

If they were still with us, the “literary” standard of most of these departmental reports would make Bertha M. Clay hug the rail and E. P. Roe carry weight. But, of course, one must not look for nor expect literary exaltedness in a departmental report. It should, however, tell us—we people—a good many things we wish to know, in fact, ought to know. It should not give us too much talk merely to show us how much—or how little—some chief or assistant knows. If you get the opportunity, read the Postmaster General’s 1910 report, and you will find many things in it that will jar you loose from your expectations, but do not be alarmed at that. Just keep in mind the fact that you can come as near reciting the Rubaiyat backwards as can Postmaster General Hitchcock, and that you at least know Old Mother Hubbard “by heart” as well as he knows it.

The point I am trying to make—to emphasize—is that Mr. Hitchcock’s 1910 report presents much valuable information for you and me. So you should not allow its follies to scare you off. For instance, the Postmaster General’s fifty notations of “Improvements in Organization and Methods.” Why he should stop at a round fifty I do not know. I believe he could easily have added twenty or thirty more of kind. Some of these “improvements” are most excellent; some of them are so assumedly conclusive on matters previously—for years—in doubt and controversy as to touch off the risibles in any man who has made anything like a careful study of conditions governing the Postoffice Department. For instance, his “Improvement” numbered 10 reads:

“The successful completion of an inquiry into the cost of handling and transporting mail of the several classes and of conducting the money order, registry and special delivery services.”

We can hope that the aforesaid “inquiry” was so carefully and comprehensively conducted as to entitle it to be classed as “successful” as Mr. Hitchcock’s statement is assertive. However, just how far we may prudently indulge such hope is a matter for grave consideration. The Postmaster General’s Third Assistant, James J. Britt, attempts to tell us (pp. 328-329, 1910 report), all about it. Mr. Britt will be referred to later.

Again: Mr. Hitchcock in his No. 11 “Improvement,” reports[79] “the successful prosecution of an inquiry into the cost to the railroad companies of carrying the mails, the result of which will form a reliable basis for fixing rates of pay for railroad mail transportation.”

Now, if Mr. Hitchcock has really and truly so conducted an “inquiry” as to ascertain a “reliable basis” of pay for the mail haulage service rendered by the railroads—“a reliable basis” that can be built upon, acted upon and enforced—if he has done that, then he deserves a niche in the Hall of Fame. But here, again, I am doubtful. Did you take Britt’s word for it, Mr. Hitchcock, or did you steer the “inquiry” yourself? The only point of interest to us of the commonalty involved in your eleventh improvement is: Can you, or any other Postmaster General, compel or persuade the railroads to carry the mail at a reasonable rate? Will such rate be based upon that “reliable basis” you say you have ascertained?

Grant us but that and we shall ask no more nor will you have any “deficits” to worry about. I know you explain quite fully (pp. 18-20), as to how you went about it, how Congress made appropriation for a force of “temporary clerks” to tabulate the information, the data which your “successful” inquiry brought to the surface. Still, knowing something about the devious peculiarities of the railways in the past—say, back to the Wolcott investigation (at this moment I forget the year when this was made and have neither the time nor the opportunity to climb down and look it up)—unless the railways have had a rush of honesty and conscience into their reports, accounts and practices, I am gravely doubtful as to the dependability of the data your “inquiry” uncovered. Of course, if you went after them, backed by a court order calling for a showdown, Mr. Hitchcock, you may have arrived somewhere in the vicinity of the facts. Otherwise—well, you got about what other inquirers got—got what the railways wanted you to know.

I shall make no further specific reference to the fifty improvements the Postmaster General claims to have covered into operative effectiveness. It is due, however, that I say, in this connection, that the majority of those named in the report are sound, sane and serviceably economic. It is also due from me to say that I personally know that Mr. Hitchcock has already made a number of them effectively operative in his department and to the betterment of its service. My[80] contention with the Postmaster General is chiefly concerning three points, viz.:

First—His manifest intent to throw the burden of his departmental deficit upon a few independent periodicals which, by reason of their independence, have indulged the proclivity or practice of telling the truth about corporate, vested and other favored interests, and about corrupt officials—city, county, state, national, executive, legislative and juridic.

Second—His colossally unjust and unfair way of figuring his “deficit” against such periodicals. Maybe it was Britt, Third Assistant Postmaster General, or some other “pied” subordinate who did the figuring. I do not know. However, in common with other citizens, I hold Mr. Hitchcock responsible for those figures, as we are fully warranted in doing by reason of his official position.

Third—Mr. Hitchcock, it appears, in his reports and letters, gives us a lot of talk that is twisted, “pretzel talk,” someone has aptly called it. This “night-crawler” talk quite naturally—legitimately, if not naturally—leaves thoughtful people to wonder what he wants, what he is after, what interest or interests he is trying to subserve and what “influences” have influenced him to go after certain periodicals in so bald and crude a way.

Still, that does not altogether fully express my third objection to Mr. Hitchcock and his methods. His letters and special reports in support of the absurd claim that the transportation and handling of second-class mail matter costs 9.23 cents per pound, a figure above or equal to that which will carry gold or currency bills by express for the average mail haul, furnish valid grounds for doubt as to the good faith of his intent, to suspicion an ulterior motive back of his action and writings. To this I do not hesitate to say that his 1910 report, I mean his own personally signed section of it, is offensively bureaucratic. Mr. Hitchcock, it appears from his own recommendations, would have his bureau or department bigger than Congress. He wants powers and authority centered in it which Congress should not delegate, which Congress has no rightful powers nor authority to delegate.

Now, do not misapprehend me. Maybe Mr. Hitchcock has not done all this on his own initiative. He may have acted wholly on a long-distance or a central direction from the main stem. I shall,[81] however, proceed to support my accusation that Mr. Hitchcock evidences in his 1910 report a desire—a tendency, if not a desire,—to make the Postmaster General not only a censor of periodical literature (as indicated in the wording of that “rider” amendment printed on a previous page), but to have delegated to him powers over the mail service which not only contravene the basic principles of a democratic form of government, but which, also, tend to establish a bureaucracy that, if carried to its full flower, will, necessarily abrogate our form of government itself.

Here let us note Mr. Hitchcock’s recommended legislation. In the report before me he makes thirty-six recommendations. In each of these which grants added powers or authority touching any matter, the wording of the suggested legislation gives such added powers and authority to the Postmaster General. In certain minor matters, especially such as relate only to departmental methods of handling its service accounts, etc., such grant of power is entirely proper. Among Mr. Hitchcock’s recommendations are several of such character, and, so far as I have studied them, they appear sound, and consequently their passage by Congress and their application to the department would, in my judgment, effect material savings or betterments in the service.

In a number of other instances, however, Mr. Hitchcock asks legislation that will grant him (or any succeeding head of the federal Postoffice Department), powers and authority which should be granted to no bureau or departmental division of our government service. I mean that the acquirement of such legislative powers and authority by bureaus (cabinet service divisions), is inimical to the basic principles of our government; in fact, it is a stealthy move to establish in this country the bureaucratic form of government which has proved a curse in every existing monarchical government, causing their peoples to rebel against them, or constantly a condition of unrest under the system—a condition which indicates either enforced submission to governmental wrongs and impositions or a dwarfed and submerged manhood, “begging for leave to live” and devoting most of its thought to a few questions, such as: “Why did I arrive? What am I here for? I work, why does the government take most of my earnings? Why does the government and its bureau heads live, live in luxury, while I and my wife and children merely exist,—barely subsist? Why are[82] hundreds of millions taken every year from people who need it to secure the common comforts of life, and given, unearned, to those who need it not at all?”

It would require pages even to print the inquiries which the victims of bureaucratic governments ask themselves daily, ask themselves daily so long as they exist above the level of the clod, above the level which Edward Markham so forcefully and eloquently depicts in his “Man with the Hoe.”

The point I desire to emphasize is that when the great body of people in any country—its “citizens”—begin to ask themselves such questions, their patriotism begins to dry-rot and die, and when the patriotism of a nation’s people begins to die, that nation is on the farther slope of its existence; it has started on the decline, more or less sharp, which ends in rebellion, dissolution, extinction. This is the uniform lesson of history. He who reads it not so reads either not carefully or not comprehendingly.

To a few of my readers the foregoing may appear to be a digression from my subject. It is not intended as such. It is intended to call the reader’s attention to some powers and authority Mr. Hitchcock seeks in his recommended legislation, legislation which should not be enacted. Let us look at a few of those recommendations. If space permitted, I would take pleasure in commenting on several more of them.

On page 10 of his report, Mr. Hitchcock repeats a recommendation of his 1909 report. He repeats it “earnestly.” He also expresses the opinion that “as soon as the postal savings system is thoroughly organized, the Postoffice Department should be prepared to establish throughout the country a general parcels post.” As a “preliminary step” to such establishment of a parcels post Mr. Hitchcock seeks authority from Congress to initiate a “limited parcels post service on rural routes.” On page 26 of his report, Mr. Hitchcock suggests the substantials of the legislation he believes necessary to enable him to establish his contemplated “limited parcels post service on rural routes,” as an experimental test.

As evidence that he wants the power and authority to make this “experiment” on his own lines and judgment and pursuant of his own purposes I shall here quote the form of his advised legislation. To anyone who has made study of parcels post service it is needless to say[83] that among the civilized nations of the earth the United States is so far in arrears in such service as to be generally recognized as an international joke. It is quite needless to say to such that Mr. Hitchcock’s prattle of a “limited” parcels post and of trying it on certain selected rural routes (with no privileges of service beyond the geographical limits of such routes), as an “experiment,” is more than a mere joke.

Informed people know that any such restricted test of a parcels post service is no test at all. Informed men also know that our Federal Postoffice Department needs make no “experiments” on the parcels post service, “limited” or other. Every other civilized nation, and even provinces such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and others, have made the “experiments,” likewise the successful demonstrations. The experiments of these other nations and provinces, as well as the results of them, are ours for the asking. Not alone that, but informed men know, and know positively, that our Federal Postoffice Department is in possession of—or was in possession of—all this information gathered from the experiences and trials and tests of a parcels post service in these other countries.

So, I repeat that Mr. Hitchcock’s talk about making an experimental test of the general value of a parcels post service by putting it in operation on a few selected rural routes is a joke, or else it is an evasion in order to delay the installation of a service which every citizen wants, save, of course, the few individuals who now own and control our railroads, which individuals also own, to a controlling extent at least, our express companies.

But I must quote Mr. Hitchcock’s advised legislation in order to show the reader that Mr. Hitchcock desires that the resulting powers and authority center in him, or in his successors:

In order that the recommendation on page 10 of this report for the introduction of a limited parcels post service on rural routes may be promptly carried into effect, it is suggested that legislation substantially as follows be enacted:

For one year, beginning April 1, 1911, the Postmaster General may, under such regulations as he shall prescribe, authorize postmasters and carriers on such rural routes as he shall select to accept for delivery by carrier on the route on which mailed or on any other route starting at the postoffice, branch postoffice or station which is the distributing point for that route, or for delivery through any postoffice, branch postoffice, or station on any of the said routes, at such rates of postage as he shall determine, packages not exceeding 11 pounds in weight containing[84] no mail matter of the first class and no matter that is declared by law to be unmailable, and he shall report to Congress at its next session the results of this experiment (Page 26, 1910 Report.)

The italics are mine. They make all the comment that is necessary in proof of my charge that Mr. Hitchcock seeks powers and authority which should not be delegated to any bureau head.

As a companion piece to the foregoing Mr. Hitchcock asks the following legislation—legislation which, if granted or enacted, must look to any man who has given even a cursory study to the subject of parcels post service, as merely a “stall,” a bit of dilatory play to delay effective and efficient action to install a serviceable parcels post until the express company interests pull down two or three hundred millions more of unearned profits.

Following is the companion piece of the last preceding quotation. The italics are mine and make the only comment that is necessary:

As suggested on page 10 of this report, an investigation should be authorized as to the conditions under which the transportation of merchandise by mail may be wisely extended. For this purpose it is recommended that legislation substantially as follows be enacted:

The Postmaster General is hereby directed to ascertain by such investigation or experiment as is found necessary, and to report to Congress at its next regular session, the lowest rates of postage at which the Postoffice Department can carry by mail, without loss, parcels not exceeding 11 pounds in weight; and he is hereby authorized to place in effect for one year, beginning April 1, 1911, at such postoffices as he shall select for experimental purposes, such rates of postage on fourth-class matter as he deems expedient; and the sum of $100,000 is hereby appropriated to cover any expenses incurred hereunder, including compensation of temporary employees and rental of quarters in Washington, D. C. (Page 26, 1910 Report.)

We will here drop the subject of parcels post for the time. In a later section of this volume I shall discuss the subject—largely aside from Mr. Hitchcock’s attempts, as has been authoritatively reported to me, to delay if not to block its successful installation.

I will make a few more quotations in evidence of Mr. Hitchcock’s desire to acquire bureaucratic powers:

To provide for a postal note in accordance with the plan outlined on pages 10 and 11 it is recommended that legislation substantially as follows be enacted:

The Postmaster General may authorize postmasters at such offices as he shall designate, under such regulations as he shall prescribe, to issue and pay money orders of fixed denominations not exceeding ten dollars, to be known as postal notes.

Sec. 2. Postal notes shall be valid for six calendar months from the last day[85] of the month of their issue, but thereafter may be paid under such regulations as the Postmaster General may prescribe.

Sec. 3. Postal notes shall not be negotiable or transferable through indorsement.

Sec. 4. If a postal note has been once paid, to whomsoever paid, the United States shall not be liable for any further claim for the amount thereof. (Page 29, 1910 Report.)

Let us next look at a peculiar, “an unusual,” request for legislation granting authority to the Postmaster General to do a most “unusual” thing, the granting of salaries higher than $1,200 a year to clerks and carriers, who are paid under the present law $600 a year, whenever the postmaster “certifies to the department” that “unusual” conditions in his community prevent him from securing efficient help. The italics are my own and make comment unnecessary:

In last year’s report, attention was directed to the desirability of authorizing the appointment of clerks and carriers at higher salaries than $600 at offices where unusual conditions prevail. Congress added to the appropriation for unusual conditions a proviso that may have been intended to meet the recommendation of the department, but subsequent experience has shown that it fails to do so. The proviso referred to has effected so great a reduction in the amount available for salaries of employees at offices where conditions are unusual that the service at a number of such offices cannot be maintained after the close of the present calendar year, unless additional funds are provided by Congress. The same law placed a restriction on the maximum salary allowable, making it impossible for the department to meet satisfactorily the unusual conditions existing in certain parts of the country. In order that the needed relief may be afforded legislation substantially as follows should be enacted:

Whenever a postmaster certifies to the department that, owing to unusual conditions in his community, he is unable to secure the services of efficient employees at the initial salary provided for postoffice clerks and letter carriers, the Postmaster General may authorize, in his discretion, the appointment of clerks and letter carriers for that office at such higher rates of compensation within the grades prescribed by law as may be necessary in order to insure a proper conduct of the postal business, and their salaries shall be paid out of the regular appropriation for compensation of clerks and letter carriers: Provided, That whenever such action is necessary in order to maintain adequate service at any postoffice where conditions are unusual the Postmaster General may authorize the appointment of clerks and letter carriers at salaries higher than $1,200, their salaries to be paid out of the appropriation for unusual conditions at postoffices. (Page 30, 1910 Report.)

I wonder what our Postmaster General is after in asking re-enactment of legislation of this sort, legislation granting him censorial powers without so much as intimating that fact. Maybe some of you[86] organized labor men, or mercantile tradesmen can tell me. I am listening. So are others.

By the act approved May 27, 1908, making appropriations for the service of the Postoffice Department, it was provided:

That Section 3893 of the Revised Statutes of the United States be amended by adding thereto the following: And the term “indecent” within the intendment of this section shall include matter of a character tending to incite arson, murder, or assassination.

The enactment of this statute accomplished beneficial results, and it does not appear that injustice or undue hardship resulted therefrom to any person or interest. However, the provision quoted was not retained in the penal code adopted March 4, 1909, and became void when the code went into effect on January 1, 1910. On the assumption that the omission was inadvertent, it is recommended that the provision be re-enacted. (Page 37, 1910 Report.)

Following is one more reach by Mr. Hitchcock for bureaucratic power which should not be granted:

By virtue of his office the Postmaster General has the power to conclude money-order conventions with foreign countries and to prescribe the fees to be charged for the issue of international money orders. In like manner he should be empowered to determine, from time to time, as conditions may warrant, the fees to be charged for the issue of domestic money orders. It is recommended, therefore, that Section 2 of the act of January 27, 1894, be repealed, and that as a substitute therefor legislation substantially as follows be enacted:

Section 2 of the act of January 27, 1894, entitled “An act to improve the method of accounting in the Postoffice Department and for other purposes,” is hereby repealed. A domestic money order shall not be issued for more than one hundred dollars, and the fees to be charged for the issue of such orders shall be determined, from time to time, by the Postmaster General: Provided, however, that the scale of fees prescribed in said Section 2 shall remain in force for three months from the last day of the month in which this act is approved. (Page 38, 1910 Report.)

I have probably quoted sufficient to show that Postmaster General Hitchcock is reaching for power and authority which should not be delegated to any bureau or cabinet head. The last statement is made, of course, in the confident belief that the reader joins me in the desire and confident hope that the basic principles of our government will be neither superseded nor abrogated by legislative grants of bureaucratic power and authority, which power and authority once granted is seldom or never recovered to a people without sanguinary action on their part, with all the waste of effort, vitality, money and human life usually a concomitant of such action.

There are several more of Postmaster General Hitchcock’s[87] legislative recommendations I would like to quote, did space permit, but there is one other which I will quote, because it wears a sort of humoresque drapery when taken in connection with that “rider” Mr. Hitchcock so industriously tried to put through the necessary three-ring stunts required in the senatorial circus; also when taken in connection with a little, not separately stitched, brochure which Mr. Hitchcock turns loose on pages 7 and 8 of his most excellent, though ulteriorly tutoring, report.

On pages 7 and 8 the Postmaster General tells us, as best he can, under influenced and influencing conditions, the why and wherefore for his attempt to load his department deficit onto a few periodicals which he, likewise certain of his “influencers” possibly, does not like. Well, I want my readers to read this bit of official effort, in a wrong cause. I want them to read it in the raw, with no spring papering or decorating on it.

As has been my practice in quoting, I shall take occasion to italicize a little. But that will not cut any four-leaf clovers this early in the season. I italicize merely to call the reader’s attention to the elegant assertiveness of Mr. Hitchcock’s “style” and to his planned determination to “put it over” on those pestiferous periodicals—weekly and monthly—in spite of constitutional prohibitions, Senate rules or publishers’ opposition.

Stay! I have another reason for italicizing. I want the reader to read those italicized phrasings of Mr. Hitchcock’s unstitched brochure a second time, and to read them more carefully the second time than he did the first. If the reader will kindly do this we will be better acquainted, also be mutually better acquainted with Mr. Hitchcock and his dominating purpose, whether ulterior or other, in attacking a special class or division of periodical publications in order to recoup a deficit created wholly by the rural delivery service and by the free (franked and penalty), service rendered by his department. We will first quote his little second-class brochure and follow it with his humoresque legislative recommendation:

In the last annual report of the department special attention was directed to the enormous loss the government sustains in the handling and transportation of second-class mail. Owing to the rapid increase in the volume of such mail the loss is constantly growing. A remedy should be promptly applied by charging more postage. In providing for the higher rates it is believed that a distinction should be made between advertising matter and what is termed legitimate reading[88] matter. Under present conditions an increase in the postage on reading matter is not recommended. Such an increase would place a special burden on a large number of second-class publications, including educational and religious periodicals, that derive little or no profit from advertising. It is the circulation of this type of publications, which aid so effectively in the educational and moral advancement of the people, that the government can best afford to encourage. For these publications, and also for any other legitimate reading matter in periodical form, the department favors a continuation of the present low postage rate of 1 cent a pound, and recommends that the proposed increase in rate be applied only to magazine advertising matter. This plan would be in full accord with the statute governing second-class mail, a law that never justified the inclusion under the second-class rates of the vast amounts of advertising now transported by the government at a tremendous loss.

Newspapers are not included in the plan for a higher rate on advertising matter because, being chiefly of local distribution, they do not burden the mails to any such extent as the widely circulating magazines.

Under the system proposed it will be possible, without increasing the expenditure of public funds, to utilize for the benefit of the entire people that considerable portion of the postal revenues now expended to meet the cost of a special privilege enjoyed by certain publishers.

In view of the vanishing postal deficit it is believed that if the magazines could be required to pay what it costs the government to carry their advertising pages, the department’s revenues would eventually grow large enough to warrant 1-cent postage on first class mail. Experiments made by the department show that the relative weights of the advertising matter and the legitimate reading matter in magazines can be readily determined, making it quite feasible to put into successful operation the plan outlined. Under that plan each magazine publisher will be required to certify to the local postmaster, in accordance with regulations to be prescribed by the department, the facts necessary to determine the proper postage charges. The method of procedure will be worked out in such manner as to insure the dispatching of the mails as expeditiously as at present. (Pages 7 and 8, 1910 Report.)

That sort of a literary hand-out may be all right for certain of our citizens transplanted from south European environment, likewise from malnutrition and inanition, by the ship load to this country, where most of them expected to find $1.50 or $2.00 per day growing on vines or low bushes—and found it, in most cases, too.

But to the home-grown American citizen, “His Majesty,” such departmental literature is a noise something like a “chuck” steak makes when his hunger suggests a “porter house” and he is without the price. That is “His Majesty” who earns what he acquires and pays for what he gets and who does not take on an over-load of the sort of official talk Mr. Hitchcock ships him in packages similar to the above.[89] Our home-grown American citizens like to have their officials say something that means something. They do not want any literary ham-and’s served to them at four prices, they knowing where to obtain them at first cost.

I intended to make further comment on the foregoing—or gone—quotation from our Postmaster General. I shall, however, deny myself that pleasure, confidently believing that my italicization of certain of its phrasings and statements is sufficient comment for the reader who is following me in this effort to peel the varnish and frescoe from a planned bad cause.

The reader who has followed me thus far and has not discovered that I am writing against the men who are, I believe, trying to set the brakes on legislation in order to serve some “good interest” which pays them a thousand or more for each of the twelve annual connections with the cashier or “deposit certificates”—the reader who, I say, has followed me thus far and failed to discover that fact should quit right here. It will not cure him to read the rest of what I shall say. It is to be worse than what I have previously said; in fact, it is going to be some distance beyond “the limit.” My advice to any “frail” reader, therefore, is to quit right at this point and give his brain a rest until he is able to “come back” and learn something.

We will now take a look at the humoresque “throw” of our Postmaster General for legislative action. To fully appreciate it, the reader must bear in mind that Mr. Hitchcock’s division of his 1910 report is of date, December 1st, 1910, and signed by himself. The reader should furthermore bear in mind that Mr. Hitchcock had previously reported—and more frequently asserted—that the transportation and handling of second-class mail cost the government 9.23 cents per pound. The reader should, in this instance, likewise take into his judgmental grinder the fact that Mr. Hitchcock, in the quotation which follows, is trying to put up another hurdle for the magazines and other periodicals to jump; that is, for such of them as he may not like, to jump.

This recommendation for legislative authority is intended to cut out the sample copy privilege of periodicals, a privilege which the government should encourage rather than discourage:

In order to discontinue the privilege of mailing sample copies at the cent-a-pound rate, legislation in substantially the following form is suggested:

[90]

That so much of the act approved March 3, 1885 (23 Stat., 387), as relates to publications of the second class be amended to read as follows:

“That hereafter all publications of the second-class, except as provided by Section 25 of the act of March 3, 1879 (20 Stat., 361), when sent to subscribers by the publishers thereof and from the known offices of publication, or when sent from news agents to subscribers thereto or to other news agents for the purpose of sale, shall be entitled to transmission through the mails at one cent a pound or fraction thereof, such postage to be prepaid as now provided by law.”

While I have not the act of 1885 at hand, I am aware that it permits what the Postmaster General asks for, a 1-cent per pound rate for periodicals admissible under the acts of 1879 and 1885. Mr. Hitchcock asks for this legislation, a-cent per pound rate, December 1st, 1910.

Before that date and since he has repeatedly asserted, both in print and “interview,” that second-class mail costs the government 9.23 cents per pound to transport and handle. Do you see the equivocating “ulterior” in this bit of recommended legislation? If you do not, just go into the back yard and kick yourself until you awaken to the fact and then come back and read Mr. Britt’s statement, page 328 of the 1910 report. Britt is Third Assistant Postmaster General and knows—well, he knows so much that he has to space-write in order to fill in about sixty pages of this 1910 report. But, as I have to take notice of Mr. Britt’s furnished data later, I shall give him no more attention at this point.

I believe that I have either furnished the evidence to prove the purpose, the ulterior purpose, of Postmaster General Hitchcock, or of his influences, to punish certain periodicals, to penalize them for telling the truth, likewise to acquire bureaucratic powers to give his department the right of censorship over our periodical literature; not only that, but to have the successful introduction of a parcels post dependent on conditions of his own choosing.