Chapter V: The Penrose-Overstreet Commission (1)

Next we will again take notice of Postmaster General Hitchcock’s peculiar figures. I do not know where he learned how to do it, but his “figerin’” has any expert accountant on the mat taking the count. He is certainly a “phenom”--or his Third Assistant, Mr. Britt, or other aid, is the “phenom.” At any rate the figures Mr. Hitchcock and his third “assist” are wonderfully, likewise _mysteriously_, worked into a little third-grade problem which makes it look like a proposition in trigonometry or fluxions.

It’s too complicated for me. I never had the advantage of hulling beans in Massachusetts. My cornfield arithmetic was all acquired in Illinois. So, instead of permitting myself to become enmeshed in Mr. Hitchcock’s figures, I shall resort to my frequently used tactics. I shall quote.

I have before me several analyses of Mr. Hitchcock’s peculiar application of the “double-rule-of-three,” as the schoolmaster used to call it down in that little school house at the cross roads in District 6, Town. 17, R. 3 E. The schoolmaster used to divide his time between “’rithmetic” and lamming. I graduated with honors in the latter. ’Rithmetic never seemed to take kindly to me--save to push me along in the lamming course. But----

Well, that is sufficient explanation to the reader to give broad, likewise legitimate, grounds for excusing me if I dodge, or try to dodge, Mr. Hitchcock and his Third Assistant when they get down to “figerin’.”

Candidly I am at a loss to know why young men of their physical robustness and their abnormal--yes, phenomenal--super-excellence in the matter of figuring things out, should be frittering away their time on a loafing job with the government. They ought to be holding down the chairs of Mathematics and of Expert Accounting at Onion Run University, or at some other advanced institution of learning.

But, as previously intimated, I am going to quote--am going to let someone else into the maelstrom of official figures.

I would not, however, have the reader think for a minute that I lacked the courage to take the plunge myself. Not at all. I know my limitations. Mr. Hitchcock is not only a graduate of Harvard, but he is a graduate of _two_ Republican party campaign committees. I’d be perfectly willing to take chances against Harvard in any game of figuring, but when it comes to sitting into the game with a graduate in two courses of party campaign figuring, one as Secretary and the other as Manager of the National Republican Committee,--well, when it comes to that, I believe the reader will excuse me if I push some more expert arithmeticians to the front.

I will first quote from the 1907 Joint Commission which investigated costs of second-class mail haulage and handling, and then I will quote the publishers whose figures Senator Owen so pertinently presented in connection with his remarks when speaking in opposition to the rider, February 25, 1911.

Being perfectly familiar with the proceedings of the Senate Committee on Postoffices and Postroads, he must, necessarily, have learned something from the publishers who came with the open, frank--yes, certified--information as to their business. Likewise, he must have got fairly well acquainted with Mr. Hitchcock and also have learned something of his _promotive_ methods of figuring.

I have, as yet, not had the pleasure--the honor--of meeting Senator Owen or his strong, clean minded, clean acting colleague, Senator Gore, but I like them.

Why?

_Because they stand on the floor of the Senate and fight--fight for what is right._

Now that I have a copy before me, I will proceed to quote from that report made by the 1907 commission--a commission which dug up more information regarding the haulage and handling of second-class mail matter than Mr. Hitchcock could possibly have gathered in two years as head of the Postoffice Department. The commission was composed of Senators Penrose, Carter and Clay and Congressmen Overstreet, Moon and Gardner, men far better informed as to federal postal affairs than is Postmaster General Hitchcock.

This commission was authorized by Congress to make inquiry regarding second-class mail matter. The reader may remember that I made reference to this report on a previous page. It presents much information and collated data, which, if Mr. Hitchcock had studiously read would have enabled him to avoid many of the egregious blunders he has made at frequent intervals during the past two years when discussing the subject. It would, at any rate, have prudently curbed or restrained what appears in Mr. Hitchcock to be a native or acquired tendence to volume or tonnage in talk when he is speaking of second-class mail matters or of the publication and distribution of periodical literature. I do not concur in a number of the conclusions of this commission as presented in its report, but no fair-minded man can read that report without being convinced that the commissioners delved into the subjects of the classification of second-class mail matter and the cost, to the government, of its haulage and handling most earnestly; also as thoroughly and as deeply as the _lack of organization in the Postoffice Department and its antiquated, careless and inaccurate accounting_ left it possible for anyone to go.

This commission began its sessions in New York, October 1, 1906. It sent advance notice to all the organizations of publishers in the country, to publishers not in organization, to editorial associations, to boards of trade, mercantile, commercial and trades associations and to other individuals and organizations that might be interested, directly or indirectly, in the subject matter to be investigated. It invited them to present their views, complaints, objections and suggestions in writing and also to send representatives to present their views and their grievances, if any, to the commission in person. The notice and invitation of the commission met with a large response from the newspapers and other periodical publishers, also from other individuals and associations interested in the distribution of periodical literature by reason of the commercial, educational, religious, fraternal, scientific or other benefits such literature conveyed to the people.

At the suggestion of this commission, the Postoffice Department prepared and delivered to it “an elaborate statement with exhibits” to show the “defects of the existing statute as developed in _actual operation_.” Also, the then Postmaster General, Mr. George B. Cortelyou, his Second Assistant, Mr. W. S. Shallenberger, and his Third Assistant, Mr. Edwin C. Madden, prepared and presented personal statements to the commission.

Now some readers may wonder why I so particularly present the work done by this commission for their consideration at this point in my discussion of the general subject we have under consideration. In view of my previous statement, to the effect that I do not agree with some of the conclusions of this “Penrose-Overstreet Commission” some reader may wonder why I make reference to it at all. Well, there are several reasons why I do so and do it just at this point in the consideration of our general subject. Among those reasons are, briefly stated, the following:

The inquiry and investigation of this commission were broad, comprehensive and thorough.

Its report presents many arguments, recommendations and conclusions which must appeal to any man who is fairly well informed as to our federal postal service, as sound and sensible, however widely he may differ from the commission’s conclusions on some other points covered in its report.

Some readers who have seen and read the Penrose-Overstreet Commission’s report may possibly have concluded that it presents _all_ the information collected and collated by the commission. The reader so concluding would, almost necessarily, think the information it presents insufficient, both in subject matter and in detail, to be as helpful to the Postmaster General as, on a previous page, I have asserted the work of this commission would be to Mr. Hitchcock, or would have been had he taken the trouble to consult the voluminous but carefully collated data gathered by the 1906-7 commission and on file in his department.

I will here quote a few lines from the report of the Penrose-Overstreet Commission in proof of the fact that its inquiry, investigations and work provided Postmaster General Hitchcock, had he but taken the time to consult it, a store of information vastly greater than that presented in its brief official report of sixty-three pages.

Read the following and you will readily understand why Representative Moon, on March 3, 1911, so strenuously objected to the appointment of another second-class mail commission and to spending $50,000 more of the people’s money to investigate a matter already thoroughly and comprehensively investigated and to collect and collate data _which is already on file in the Postoffice Department_. The quotation is from page 6 of the commission’s report. The italics are the writer’s:

In accordance with this plan, (outlined in immediately preceding
paragraphs), which operated to economize the time as well of the
commission as of those appearing before it, _a great volume of
evidence was presented upon all aspects of the question_ from the
standpoint _both of the postal service and of the publications
involved_

…

The testimony taken by the commission at these hearings, with
statements submitted in writing by publishers not orally heard,
boards of trade, and the like, and other data collected by the
commission in the course of its investigations, _together with a
complete digest of such testimony, are embodied in the record of
its proceedings submitted with this report_.

To the end of getting our corner stakes properly located in order to run our lot-lines correctly, I desire to quote further from the report of this 1906-7 commission. It says some pertinent things and _says them hard_. Before quoting, however, I desire to amplify a little on the character of that commission, on the general character of the men composing it as indicated in their official and public action.

The first point of interest for us commoners to note and appreciate is that the photographs of none of them, so far as I have been able to learn, have appeared in the rogues’ gallery. We may therefore presume that they are not only intelligent but “square” men--men worthy of Mr. Hitchcock’s consideration and respect as well as our own.

The second point worthy of note in considering the personnel of that commission is that none of them, so far as public reports show, ever had the advantages and opportunities of acquiring that peculiar and specialized knowledge of federal postal affairs, second-class or other, which may accrue to men from a postgraduate course in national party management.

In this connection, however, it may be said that some members of the commission may have come _near_ to such unusual opportunities as just mentioned for acquiring expert knowledge of the classification, transportation and handling of second-class mail.

It is also fitting for me to say in speaking of the gentlemen composing that 1906-7 commission that, so far as I have been able to look up their biographies in the Congressional Directory and elsewhere, I find nothing to indicate that any of them ever tried to rob a smokehouse nor have any of them ever tried to put over any piece of “frame-up” legislation of the nature of Mr. Hitchcock’s “rider,” printed on a previous page--_legislation to hobble, punish or ruin periodicals honest enough and independent enough to tell the truth to a hundred millions of people_.

The foregoing are some of the reasons--there are many others--why I think the membership of that Penrose-Overstreet Commission of 1906-7 was possessed of an ability, character and qualification to have commanded Mr. Hitchcock’s careful consideration of the information and data the commission so carefully collated, after thorough investigation, and submitted with its official report.

“Maybe he did make a careful study of that collated data?”

Yes, maybe he did. But if he did, then much of the “student discipline” and of the “study habit,” which graduates of Harvard are presumed to have acquired, must have lapsed in the shuffle of the cards from which recent years have dealt his hands. I say this respectfully as well as candidly.

I cannot think of it as possible for a man of Mr. Hitchcock’s known intellectual gauge to read--_studiously read_--the facts as presented in the testimony before that 1906-7 commission, or so read even the 63-page official report signed by five of the commissioners (Representative Gardner being ill at the time the report was submitted)--I cannot, I say, think it possible for any man of Mr. Hitchcock’s admitted intelligence to read that testimony, collated data and report, and then proceed to talk or write so wide of _known facts_ as does he in parts of his 1909 and 1910 reports and in his letters to Senator Penrose, printed in previous pages.

It may be--yes, it is most probable--that the commission did not dig out _all_ the facts. But admitting that, the further admission must be made by any fair-minded man that most of the facts it _did dig out_ appear to be the very facts which Postmaster General Hitchcock _ignored_--ignored with the self-centered nonchalance of a “short story” cowboy when “busting” a broncho before an audience.

I shall now present a few statements from the report of that commission, first quoting some of the arguments presented by publishers who appeared at its hearings personally or by representatives, or who presented their views in writing on the various phases of the questions under consideration. The quotations made, the reader must understand to be the commission’s summary of what the publishers testified to, criticised or recommended, and not the full testimony or reports as made by the publishers.

I have taken the liberty to italicize certain phrases and sentences in these quotations, my purpose being, of course, to bring the points so italicized more particularly to the reader’s notice:

The primary purpose and function of the postal service being
the transportation of government and letter mail, second,
third, and fourth class matter are not strictly chargeable with
that proportion of the total cost of the service which would
be equivalent to their proportion of total weight or volume,
but these secondary classes, on the contrary, are chargeable
only with that fraction of total cost which would remain after
deducting all expenses of installation and general management
involved in the maintenance of a complete postal service for
government and letter mail. This method of computation should be
applied not only in respect of the expenses of administration and
handling, but especially in respect of the expense of railway
mail transportation, in which, by reason of the sliding scale of
payment, the additional burden of second-class matter entailed
but _an infinitesimal additional cost_. As an illustration of
this point, attention was drawn to the statement of Dr. Henry C.
Adams, in his report to the commission of 1898 (p. 404), that _if
the volume of mail had been decreased so that the ton-mileage had
been 169,809,000 instead of 272,000,000, the railway mail pay
would have been practically the same_.

In other words, the argument is that the true cost of
second-class matter is merely that part of total cost which
_would be saved if second-class matter were now eliminated_.

The foregoing is from page 9 of the commission’s report. On the same page of the report it gives a summary of another set of reasons presented by the publishers in their argument in support of their contention that the mail rate on second-class matter should be low:

That second-class matter, by reason of the fact that it is
handled largely in bulk in full sacks already routed and
separated and requires little or no handling by the railway mail
service or the force at the office of mailing and of delivery,
is in fact the _least expensive class of matter_. With respect
to the proportion so routed and separated, it was variously
estimated by the publishers as from _70 to 93_ per cent of the
total weight. The assistant postmaster at New York fixed the
percentage for his office at _67 per cent_, and the assistant
postmaster at Chicago estimated it, for the country at large, to
be between 50 and 60 per cent.

The representative of the _American Newspaper Publishers’
Association_, speaking for the metropolitan daily press, stated
that less than _6 per cent of their circulation went into the
mail at all_, in many instances the proportion being as low as
two-thirds of 1 per cent; that the radius of circulation was not
more than 150 miles; that their mailings averaged _49 pounds per
sack_, and that 93 per cent of all second-class matter going out
of New York city, for example, _was already sorted and routed_.
It was admitted, however, that while the newspapers _avail
themselves of express and railway transportation_ for matter
sent out in bulk, single copies sent to individual subscribers
invariably went by mail.

Postmaster General Hitchcock appears to have largely ignored the fact so clearly pointed out by the publishers in 1906--yes, pointed out as long ago as 1898--that second-class mail matter is a _large producer of the revenues_ received by the government from mail matter of the first, third and fourth classes. Following is a summary of what the publishers pointed out to the 1906-7 commission:

There is an immense indirect revenue on second-class matter, due
to the fact that second-class matter is itself the cause of a
great volume of first-class matter, upon which the department
reaps a handsome profit. While the extent to which first-class
matter is thus indebted to second-class matter is necessarily
indeterminate, attempts were made to illustrate it by particular
instances. This was done by computing the amount of first-class
mail arising, first, from the direct correspondence between a
publisher and the readers, and secondly, from correspondence,
between the readers and the advertisers, resulting from the
insertion of the advertisements. In the instances chosen,
the first-class matter thus stimulated appeared to be very
considerable. Upon this basis it was argued that any reduction in
the volume of second-class matter would inevitably be followed by
a corresponding reduction in first-class matter. This would not
only deprive the Postoffice Department of the revenue from the
first-class matter, _but by diminishing the total weight of the
mails would correspondingly increase the rate of mail pay_, so
that the net result of the elimination of the socially valuable
second-class matter would be an actual increase in the total cost
of the service.

The foregoing is taken from pages 12 and 13 of the commission’s report. I desire to quote further from page 13--four paragraphs--and I urge they be read with care. The reader, too, should remember that this is not _all_ that the publishers said on the points touched upon. It is, however, no doubt a fair epitome or summary of what they said or wrote to the commission. The reader should also keep in mind the fact that what they said and wrote was said and written in 1906, and _all_ they said and wrote is on file and easily accessible to Postmaster General Hitchcock:

Within an average radius of 500 miles the express companies
and railways stand willing to transport second-class matter,
in bulk packages weighing not less than 5 to 10 pounds to a
single address or to be called for, at rates actually lower than
the second-class postage rate. Inasmuch as the average haul of
second-class matter was reported by the Wolcott commission (p.
319), to be but 438 miles, it is impossible that the government
should lose anything upon the transportation of this class of
matter, or if in fact it should be found to be doing so, _the
loss must arise from an overpayment to the railways_.

Even if it should be found that second-class matter was being
carried at a distinct loss, that loss would be entirely justified
by the _educational value of the periodical press_. From the
beginning of the republic it had been the policy of Congress
to foster and assist the dissemination of information and
intelligence among the people. Next to the great public school
systems maintained by the states, the newspaper and periodical
are the chief agency of social progress and enlightenment. So
far from this being a subsidy to the publisher the advantage of
the low postage rate had been passed on to the subscriber in the
form of a better periodical and a more efficient service. Any
substantial increase in the postal rates, while for the time
being bearing heavily on the publisher, must eventually fall upon
the subscriber, either in the form of an increased price for
his reading matter or of a deterioration in the quality of that
matter.

The correct method of dealing with the question of cost is to
treat the service as a whole, and if the revenue for the whole
service, _including allowance for government mail_, meets the
cost of the whole service, it is immaterial whether each class of
that service pays its own cost, or even whether the cost of one
class has to be made up by a greater charge upon other classes.

With respect to rates, with the exception of some of the
representatives of the _stockyards journals_, periodical
publications were a unit against any increase. It was urged
that the periodical publishing business has been built up
on the present second-class rates, and that a change from 1
cent a pound to 4 cents, as suggested by the Third Assistant
Postmaster General, would cripple, if not destroy, every existing
periodical. While some would, perhaps, be able to adjust their
business to the new rates and survive, the majority would perish,
and the loss would fall heaviest on the smaller and weaker
periodicals.

We will next note some things which that 1906-7 commission said on its own account or quotes some one in whose opinion they concurred or did not, as the case might be.

Some pages back, I told the reader, in effect, that while this commission’s official report was a good one, presenting some valuable suggestions, I did not agree with certain of its recommendations and conclusions. Now, any adverse criticisms I intend to make concerning that report are, I think, best made right here, after which I will quote a few paragraphs from it which I believe highly commendable. There are many suggestions and recommendations that I believe would be of great value did the department but act upon them, and the vast amount of data the commission collected and made a digest of would, had he but looked into it carefully, most certainly have _persuaded_ Postmaster General Hitchcock to speak and write less loosely on the subjects of second-class mail rates and periodical publication and distribution, induced him to talk in a way that would not leave the impression with studious, thoughtful auditors and readers that he got his opinions at a bargain sale during its rush hours.

I shall comment adversely on but a few points of the commission’s report. Three of its members (Senators Carter and Clay and Representative Overstreet) have _passed_--not off the edge of life but to official retirement, or, maybe, to the political morgue. They, in time, may be able to “come back.” The Man on the Ladder has heard varied opinions--some of them decidedly variegated, too--anent the probability of those three gentlemen coming back. Personally I am not sufficiently acquainted with their official service careers to justify the expression of an opinion of them. If, while in office, they directed their efforts and activities to a service of their constituents and the interests of the people in general, let us hope they may “come back.” On the other hand, if while in office they were but working models of the so-called “practical” politician, then, as a matter both of self-respect and of duty, we must hope they stay in the morgue.

“The ‘practical’ politician is the _working_ politician.”

Well, yes, that may be. But most of those within range of my vision from the ladder top appear to be devoting their most active and strenuous industry to “working” the people.

No, I do not like that type of human animal popularly designated as a “practical” politician. Especially do I not like him in public office--executive, legislative or judicial--elective or appointive, and I have run the lines on a good many of them. Most of them when in positions of official power and _opportunity_ act as if their consciences had been handed down in original packages direct from their jungle ancestors. At any rate most of those in positions of official power and authority seem to follow one working rule, and follow it, too, both industriously and consistently.

_To conceal one theft, steal more._

The typical “practical” politician, when holding down a public office, usually holds-up the people. They pose and talk as courageous patriots and _large_ thinkers. Under close scrutiny, however, most of them will show up or show down merely as _discreet private or personal interest liars_.

But I have permitted my field glass to ramble from the specific to the general. Whether the three _passed_ members of the 1906-7 commission are politically dead or taking only a temporarily enforced rest, the situation is one which suggests the propriety of that subdued and respectful tone one is expected to use when standing by as a friend is lowered to an enforced rest.

I shall now offer my strictures of a few recommendations made by the 1906-7 commission and of some of the arguments the commission’s report offers to their support.

The first objection I find to the report of this Penrose-Overstreet Commission is that several of its paragraphs indicate that the commission appears to have been afflicted with Mr. Hitchcock’s current ailment--an ingrown idea that some action, legislative or other, must be taken in order to curb the circulation growth and keep down the piece or copy-weight of periodicals. To The Man on the Ladder such an idea is not only faulty to the point of foolishness but it violates long established and successfully applied business practices in the transportation and handling of goods or commodities, whatever their character. The idea, it would appear, is based upon an oft-repeated but nevertheless false statement of fact, to the effect that the government is losing money in the carriage and handling of second-class mail at the cent-a-pound rate.

The falsity of that statement I shall conclusively prove to the reader later, if he will be so indulgent as to follow me. Here I shall say only this: If the government has ever lost a cent in rail or other haulage and handling of second-class mail matter, such loss has been _wholly the result of excessive payments to railroads, Star Route and ocean carriers, to political rather than business management and to permitted raiding of the postal revenues in various ways--from overmanning the official and service force to downright thievery_.

I have adverted on a previous page to the stealings of the Machen-Beavers gang, exposed by the investigation of Joseph L. Bristow, and a stench still exhales from the Star Route lootings exposed some years previous. In the Star Route case, the waste--a more fitting word is thievery--the stealing was largely effected through the medium of “joker”-loaded or unnecessary contracts, the contracts running to the advantage of some thief who “stood in” with the party in power.

Nor has all the Star Route grafting and stealing been stopped, though both Postmaster General Hitchcock and his recent predecessor, Mr. George B. Cortelyou, deserve great praise for having eliminated much of it, and Mr. Hitchcock’s active, continued efforts to further clean out that Augean stable must command the hearty approval of every honest citizen. But, as just stated, some of the original graft and steal still lingers.

Last year I personally investigated one Star Route. It was a twenty-mile drive (round trip). The contractor was receiving $600 or more a year for the service. What he paid the villager to cover the route with his patriarchal team I do not know. The villager, however, picked up a little on the side by hauling over his drive local parcels, some merchandise and an occasional passenger. I watched his mail deliveries to the village office for ten days. On no day did the revenue to the government _exceed sixty cents, and on seven of the ten days it was below twenty cents. One day it was but ten cents._

In this connection it should also be mentioned that the village which that Star Route was presumed to serve was on a regular rural route and received fully 95% of its mail by special carrier service connecting with a trunk line station only six miles away.

But to return to my objection to the manifest efforts of the Postmaster General and of recommendations in the Penrose-Overstreet report to adopt methods or secure legislation to restrain increase in both the circulation and the copy-weight of periodicals. Of course if the government really sustains a loss on the carriage and handling of second-class matter, the loss would be greater on 160 tons than on 80 tons. I, however, contend, and shall later prove, that--barring waste, payroll loafing and stealage--the government now transports and handles second-class matter at a profit.

Postmaster General Hitchcock, so far as I have found time to read him, has made no particular effort to restrict or limit the piece or copy-weight of periodicals. He was, seemingly at least, so occupied in his efforts to “get” a few periodicals through the means of that unconstitutional “rider” of his that he had little or no time for anything else. But the 1906-7 commission boldly advocated a _penalizing_ of periodical _weight_ for copies mailed to piece, or individual, addresses.

A table of graduated increases is given and some very peculiar argument, to put it mildly, is presented to support the recommended scale, or system, of weight penalization. Following I quote from pages 28-29 of the commission’s report. The italics are mine:

The rate then for copy service would be one-eighth of a cent per
copy not to exceed _2 ounces_, one-quarter cent per copy not
to exceed 4 ounces, and one-half cent for each additional 4
ounces or fraction thereof to be prepaid in money as second-class
postage is now paid. Tabulated, it would appear thus:

Not exceeding-- Cents.
2 ounces ⅛
4 ounces ¼
8 ounces ¾
12 ounces 1¼
16 ounces 1¾
20 ounces 2¼
24 ounces 2¾
28 ounces 3¼
Etc., etc.

The net result calculated by the pound will be, upon the
periodicals above the average weight of 4 ounces and not
exceeding a pound, a change from 1 to about 1¾ cents per pound.
For heavier periodicals the rate would average 1⅞ _cents per
pound_ for those weighing 2 pounds, and increasing by an
_infinitesimal_ fraction with the proportion of weight above 4
ounces but never reaching, no matter how heavy the periodical may
grow, the limit of 2 cents per pound.

While the actual increase of rate upon the _normal_ periodical,
especially in view of the publisher’s right at all times to
send it by bulk at a cent a pound, would be so small as not to
upset his business, there would be two advantages to the postal
revenue, one at each end of the line.

(1) The making of a definite minimum charge for the handling of
the individual piece. (2) Increase of revenue as the periodical
grows heavier, due to the fact that the initial rate of
one-quarter cent for 4 ounces is _less than the incremental rate_.

This system of payment by the individual piece with a minimum
limit of weight and an increased rate for each increment of
weight is _common to the postal systems of the entire world_
with the exceptions of Canada and the United States. The only
difference is that in the present project the incremental rate is
higher than the initial rate.

Although this graduated scale would appear to be more favorable
to the smaller periodical than to the large one, it must be borne
in mind that the periodical weighing _less than 1 ounce_ and of
necessity paying the initial rate of _one-quarter cent_ would
be paying a rate (2 cents per pound), slightly greater than the
large periodical. This increase upon the periodical weighing less
than 2 ounces finds ample justification in the obvious fact that
the expense of handling second class matter is not to be measured
simply by gross weight. On the contrary, as was pointed out by
the representatives of the publishers in comparing the cost of
handling second-class with that of first-class mail, such expense
is to be measured by the number of pieces handled and frequency
of handling. _A pound of periodicals which is made up of 10 or
12 or, as is sometimes the case, 30 or 40 separate pieces, each
one of which requires a separate course of handling and delivery,
can not with justice be treated as the equivalent of a pound
of matter which requires but two, or, at most, four courses of
handling and delivery._

This increase would be offset, moreover, for the _normal_
periodical weighing less than 2 ounces, the country weekly, by
the retention of the free county privilege.

The foregoing is substantially the commission’s _whole_ argument, save a little more talk about “normal” periodicals, “normal” weeklies, and a statement to the effect that all countries, other than the United States and Canada, increase the piece, or copy, postage rate as the weight of the periodical increases--that is, these other countries do not give a _flat_ pound, gram or other unit of weight rate.

Now, I shall briefly state my objections to some points in the above quotation--those points I have italicized.

The reader, however, must bear in mind that the scale of increase in mail rates above reprinted applies _only to single copies_--to copies mailed to individual addresses. For copies mailed in _bulk_, in packages weighing not less than ten pounds, to some agent of the publisher or other individual, to be taken up by the agent or individual at train or at central postoffice, the commission recommended the cent-a-pound rate.

In adverse criticism of the commission’s argument for penalizing _weight_, because all foreign countries do so, I need but say:

1. There are more high-class newspapers--papers which, necessarily, have weight--published in this country _than is published in all the rest of the world_.

2. There are four times as many of what the 1906-7 commission--also Postmaster General Hitchcock--would class as “periodicals” published in this country _as are published in all the rest of the world_.

Sounds “loud,” does it? Well, look into the matter. Maybe I am mistaken. If so, it is a mistake made after thirty years of study of the conditions controlling in my country--in _your_ country--and of the prices paid in other countries for _efficient, satisfactory service_.

3. Those “other countries”--the stronger ones, at any rate--either _own_ or _absolutely control_ the railroads which transport their mails. In some of them, rail transportation of mails--also of government officials, the service personnel of the army and the navy, and of other government “weight”--are _carried free of charge_.

4. Those “other countries,” of which so much is said and written ostensibly for our enlightenment, have gone through the mill--their peoples have been _ground fine_ in mills of sophistry and special pleadings, to which, _for fifty years_, we have been carrying our grists.

5. Those “other countries” are making their mail service a source of _governmental revenue_.

The people of this country, today, no more expect a revenue from the government’s postal service than they expect it from the War, the Navy, the Interior, the Judicial or other service department.

The people want _service_, not revenues, from any federal service department.

And you gentlemen who vote away the people’s money for services _not_ rendered--which you _know_ will not be rendered when you vote to “burn” the money--will, before those independent periodicals are through with the recent sand-bagging attempt to censor or control their _published thought_--you will learn, I mean to say, that people want _service_ not revenues; that they want “duty,” as an engineer would name it, not a _coached_ prattle about B. T. U. or other legislative and official thermics.

Now, let us look back at that quotation--at some of the points in it I have italicized.

First paragraph quoted: Aside from small country dailies--now carried by mail to addresses inside the county of publication free--and fraternal papers, Sunday School sheets and similar publications, there are few periodicals published in this country which weigh two ounces or less.

First paragraph following tabulation: “The rate would average 1⅞ cents per pound” for periodicals weighing two pounds.

A glance at the table shows that the piece or copy rate on a periodical weighing 28 ounces is given as 3¼ cents. A periodical weighing two pounds, or 32 ounces, would be charged a half cent more, or 3¾ cents for mail carriage and delivery, instead of 2 cents as now.

Second paragraph following the table, also in last paragraph quoted: “Normal” periodicals.

What is a “normal” periodical? Are the 4 or 8 page weeklies published in the back counties and the small religious, college, Sunday school and fraternal sheets that weigh two ounces or less “normal” periodicals? Are the dailies of our large cities, weighing from four to twelve ounces, “normal” periodicals? Is the Saturday Evening Post, weighing from ten to twenty ounces a “normal” periodical?

Are any of the periodicals in the following descriptive list “normal?”

The newspapers and other periodicals named in the following tabulation are those I could find within convenient, likewise hurried, reach. I tried to get them as near concurrent dates as I could. The tabulation will show the reader the proportion of advertising to body matter, printed in the different periodicals on the dates named.

Readers particularly interested in the data presented in the tabulation should, however, understand that for the newspapers listed, no account was taken of the “write-up” or “promotion” advertising printed as reading matter. Some newspapers, at certain times, carry a considerable amount of such paid matter while the standard monthly and weekly periodicals carry little or none of it at any time:

===================+=======+==========+===========+===========+==========
| | No. of | Reading |Advertising| Gross
NAME OF | Date | Pages or | Matter, | Matter, | Weight
PERIODICAL. | of | Columns. | Pages or | Pages or | of the
| Issue.| [2] |Columns.[3]|Columns.[4]Periodical.
-------------------+-------+----------+-----------+-----------+----------
NEWSPAPERS. | | | | |
CHICAGO. | | | | |
_The Examiner._ | | | | |
Sunday Edition |6-11-11| 392 Cols.| 171½ Cols.| 220⅔ Cols.| 15 ozs.
Daily Edition |6-8-11 | 126 ” | 77⅔ ” | 48⅓ ” | 4½ ”
_Record Herald._ | | | | |
Sunday Edition |6-11-11| 448 ” | 286½ ” | 161½ ” | 18 ”
Supplement[5] | | 20 pp. | 14 pp. | 6 pp. |
Daily Edition |6-8-11 | 126 Cols.| 77⅔ Cols.| 48½ Cols.| 5 ”
_The Tribune._ | | | | |
Sunday Edition |6-11-11| 490 ” | 212⅓ ” | 277⅔ ” | 20 ”
Supplement | | 30 pp. | 22¼ pp. | 7¾ pp. |
Daily Edition |6-8-11 | 168 Cols.| 86⅓ Cols.| 81⅔ Cols.| 6½ ”
_Inter Ocean._ | | | | |
Sunday Edition |6-11-11| 316 ” | 242⅚ ” | 73⅙ ” | 12 ”
Daily Edition |6-8-11 | 84 ” | 59½ ” | 24½ ” | 4 ”
_The American._ |6-8-11 | 126 ” | 65 ” | 61 ” | 4½ ”
_Daily News._ |6-8-11 | 210 ” | 87 ” | 123 ” | 7½ ”
_Daily Journal._ |6-8-11 | 112 ” | 63⅓ ” | 48⅔ ” | 4½ ”
_The Evening Post._|6-8-11 | 84 ” | 64⅔ ” | 19⅓ ” | 3¾ ”
BOSTON. | | | | |
_The Globe._ | | | | |
Sunday Edition |6-11-11| 720 ” | 399 ” | 321 ” | 25 ”
Supplement | | 28 pp. | 20½ pp. | 7½ pp. |
Daily Edition |6-12-11| 128 Cols.| 102½ Cols.| 25½ Cols.| 4 ”
NEW YORK CITY. | | | | |
_The American._ | | | | |
Sunday Edition |6-11-11| 392 ” | 221⅘ ” | 170⅕ ” | 12½ ”
_The Herald._ | | | | |
Sunday Edition |6-11-11| 728 ” | 373 ” | 355 ” | 23½ ”
Daily Edition |6-12-11| 114 ” | 73⅘ ” | 40⅕ ” | 4 ”
PHILADELPHIA. | | | | |
_The Enquirer._ | | | | |
Sunday Edition |6-11-11| 576 ” | 339⅓ ” | 236⅔ ” | 18½ ”
Daily Edition |6-12-11| 128 ” | 65⅚ ” | 62⅙ ” | 4 ”
PITTSBURG. | | | | |
_The Gazette Times._ | | | |
Sunday Edition |6-11-11| 504 ” | 358¾ ” | 145¼ ” | 15¾ ”
Supplement | | 20 pp. | 15½ pp. | 4½ pp. |
Daily Edition |6-12-11| 84 Cols.| 56 Cols.| 29 Cols.| 3 ”
CLEVELAND. | | | | |
_The Plain Dealer._| | | | |
Sunday Edition |6-11-11| 512 ” | 292 ” | 230 ” | 16½ ”
Daily Edition |6-13-11| 112 ” | 71 ” | 41 ” | 3¾ ”
CINCINNATI. | | | | |
_The Enquirer._ | | | | |
Daily Edition |6-13-11| 112 ” | 66⅘ ” | 45⅕ ” | 4 ”
LOUISVILLE. | | | | |
_The Courier | | | | |
Journal._ | | | | |
Daily Edition |6-10-11| 112 ” | 91⅔ ” | 20⅓ ” | 4 ”
ST. LOUIS. | | | | |
_Post Dispatch._ | | | | |
Sunday Edition |6-11-11| 400 ” | 261⅓ ” | 138⅔ ” | 12 ”
_Globe Democrat._ | | | | |
Daily Edition |6-13-11| 112 ” | 67⅔ ” | 44⅓ ” | 4 ”
KANSAS CITY. | | | | |
_The Star._ | | | | |
Daily Edition |6-15-11| 112 ” | 61⅓ ” | 50⅔ ” | 4 ”
SAN FRANCISCO. | | | | |
_The Chronicle._ | | | | |
Daily Edition |6-10-11| 126 ” | 86⅘ ” | 39⅕ ” | 4½ ”
LOS ANGELES. | | | | |
_The Times._ | | | | |
Sunday Edition |6-4-11 |1170 Cols.| 586½ Cols.| 583½ Cols.| 35½ Ozs.
Supplement | | 30 pp. | 24½ pp. | 5½ pp. |
MONTHLY AND WEEKLY | | | | |
PERIODICALS. | | | | |
_Everybody’s Mag._ |4-1911 | 316 ” | 146 ” | 170 ” | 22 ”
” ” |7-1911 | 284 ” | 140 ” | 144 ” | 20 ”
_Cosmopolitan_ ” |3-1911 | 266 ” | 144¼ ” | 120¾ ” | 18 ”
” ” |7-1911 | 288 ” | 146½ ” | 141½ ” | 17 ”
_McClure’s_ ” |6-1911 | 244 ” | 113½ ” | 130½ ” | 12 ”
_American_ ” |6-1911 | 224 ” | 132½ ” | 91½ ” | 15 ”
_Pearson’s_ ” |6-1911 | 206 ” | 143 ” | 63 ” | 16½ ”
_Sat. Evening Post_|5-20-11| 68 ” | 32½ ” | 35½ ” | 9 ”
” ” ” |6-3-11 | 80 ” | 33¼ ” | 46¾ ” | 10 ”
_Ladies’ Home | | | | |
Jour’l_ |6-19-11| 84 ” | 52½ ” | 31½ ” | 16 ”
_The Literary | | | | |
Digest_ |5-13-11| 72 ” | 37⅙ ” | 34⅚ ” | 8 ”
_Inland Printer_ |3-1911 | 176 ” | 68½ ” | 87½ ” | 24 ”
_Publishers’ | | | | |
Weekly_ |3-18-11| 136 ” | 62⅓ ” | 73⅔ ” | 7½ ”
_Review of Reviews_|6-1911 | 268 ” | 129 ” | 139 ” | 17 ”
_Scribner’s | | | | |
Magazine_ |6-1911 | 250 ” | 134 ” | 116 ” | 16 ”
_Harpers’_ ” |6-1911 | 284 ” | 164 ” | 120 ” | 21 ”
_Popular_ ” |4-10-11| 286 ” | 226 ” | 42 ” | 14 ”
_The Argosy_ |5-19-11| 246 ” | 194 ” | 52 ” | 12 ”
_The All Story_ |4-19-11| 228 ” | 194 ” | 34 ” | 11 ”
_The New Magazine_ |5-19-11| 200 ” | 192 ” | 8 ” | 10 ”
===================+=======+==========+===========+===========+==========

Next to last paragraph: Note the statement that “the periodical weighing less than one ounce” must “of necessity” pay the “initial rate of one-quarter cent” or “two cents per pound.”

The initial rate as given in the table is but one-eighth of a cent. That would make a per copy mail rate of two cents per pound, whereas an initial rate of one-quarter cent per copy would make four-page sheets and leaflets “normal” periodicals weighing less than one ounce pay at a rate of four cents per pound.

Next, note the _crossed_ argument in the paragraph just referred to. The commission seems to accept the argument made by the publishers--that it cost less to handle a pound of mail made up of but one to four pieces than it costs to handle a pound made up of from ten to fifty pieces. That is a fact which admits of no controversy, is it not?

Then why did this commission advise the adoption of a flat rate of increase of two cents a pound (one-half cent for each four ounces), as the mail rate on periodicals weighing more than four ounces.

If the argument of the paragraph just cited is sound--and it certainly is sound--a just graduation of the mail charge for the carriage and piece handling of the heavier periodicals should scale downwards and not continue a flat rate, especially not continue at a flat rate on increase in weight that is greatly excessive, as two cents a pound certainly is.

I shall speak further of periodical weights later in connection with railway mail pay and car rentals. The report of this 1906-7 commission in various other paragraphs manifests a clear intent to restrict and, if possible, to curtail the expansion of second-class mail matter, not only by curbing the enlargement of periodicals in size by increasing the second-class rate and by penalizing added weight, but by putting restrictions upon the periodical publisher which must necessarily make it more difficult for him to increase his circulation. These restrictions, so far as yet expressed, apply to the publisher’s sample copy privileges and to the amount of advertising a periodical may carry.

On page 48 of its report the commission, speaking of methods to curb a periodical’s growth in both circulation and weight, advises that the following be covered into the law in lieu of certain phrasings now in the statutes and which, the commission asserts, have proved quite inadequate in restraining periodicals from expanding their circulation beyond a point which they are pleased to call “normal.” They advise that the law “enforce the requirement that the periodical may be issued and circulated _only in response to a public demand_.”

In the draft of a bill which this 1906-7 commission recommends become a law, the following are the means by which circulation “only in response to a public demand” will be attained:

(_a_) By reducing to a _minimum the sample copy, which is one
of the main agencies of inflation_. The legitimate periodical
employing this means only to a slight extent will not be at all
affected.

(_b_) By abolishing all premiums, whether of printed matter or
merchandise.

(_c_) By either prohibiting all combination offers, as, for
example, a set of books with a magazine, or requiring that in all
cases a price shall be set upon both elements of the combination
and that the full advertised price of the periodical be paid.

(_d_) By requiring that the publication shall print
conspicuously, not only its regular subscription price, but any
reduced price at which it is offered in clubbing arrangements and
the like.

(_e_) By providing that all copies which the postmaster, in the
exercise of due diligence shall be unable to deliver, shall be
returned with a postage-due stamp for an amount equal to double
the third-class rate. In other words, charge the publisher the
third-class rate both for the forwarding and the returning of any
copy sent otherwise than in response to an actual demand.

To The Man on the Ladder the commission’s talk, advising the enforcement of “the requirements that the periodical may be issued and circulated only in _response to a public demand_” (page 40 of report), reads much like one of two things--either the inconsidered or ill-considered prattle of persons who want to say _something_, or the argument of _ulterior motive_--of a covert _purpose_ to restrict, to cripple, to _kill_ the greatest instrument for the education of its _adult_ citizens which any nation of earth has to date discovered--an instrument that is economically within easy reach of its exchequer.

How much of a “public demand” does the reader think there would have been for the reaper, for the thrashing machine, for the case-hardened, steel shared plow, for the sewing machine, for the triple expansion engine, for the traveling crane, for any brand of breakfast food, of ham, of flour, books--in short, how much of “public demand” would there have been for any of the mechanical inventions, for any of the multitude of betterments in the housing, clothing and subsisting of our people, _had not that “public demand” been created_? No one wants anything, however excellent it may be, until his attention is called to it and he believes it will _aid him or her_, as the case may be, that it will lighten the stress of labor or increase its product, or in other lines and directions improve the conditions of their lives, industrially or otherwise. Ninety-nine per cent of “public opinion,” as to whether or not that public wants or does not want this, that or the other thing is _influenced_--is promoted by what it _senses_ in personal contact with the thing or by what it hears said of it or _reads of it_.

That statement is as true of the members of the 1906-7 commission and of Postmaster General Hitchcock as it is of Mr. William Mossback of Mossville, Connecticut. The “demand” of each of us--our _desire_ to possess this or that--is prompted--_is created_--by what we see, hear, feel, taste, smell or _read_ of it. We stand at the head of the nations of earth for progress in the various fields of mechanical improvement, from kitchen utensils to laundry equipment, from the plow to the electric crane. What is true of the progress of our people through the adoption of labor-saving mechanical devices, implements and machinery is correspondingly true in various other fields of progress--a progress largely the result of promoted “demand” for the better things, for the improvements of which our people have _read_ in our newspapers and in our monthly and weekly publications--yes, read of in the advertisements and in descriptive write-ups of such periodicals, if you will have it so.

So this prattle about issuing a periodical “only to public demand” is not only prattle--it is not only unsound and unbusinesslike both in theory and service practice, but it is also a _stealthy attempt to garrote the facts_, likewise an attempt to subject the great publishing interests of the country to the _rankest kind of injustice_.

How is the publisher to secure additional subscribers if he be denied mailing privilege to sample copies?

True, the bill recommended by this commission would allow the publisher to mail sample copies to the extent of ten per cent of his subscribed issue. Mr. Hitchcock, however, as I shall shortly show, proposes to exclude _all_ sample copies from the mails.

The following is quoted from Mr. Hitchcock’s 1910 report and shows that the Postoffice Department, as at present directed, is determined to curb the growth and development of periodical literature in this country in every way possible--ways that scruple not at _biased rulings and grossly unjust distinctions_. In the following Mr. Hitchcock is after what he is pleased to designate as an “abuse of the sample-copy privilege.”

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

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.”

In drafting the above recommended legislation Mr. Hitchcock no doubt was greatly assisted by the luminous suggestions, advice, analyses, etc., of his Third Assistant, Mr. Britt, to be found on pages 331 and 332 of the 1910 report--which suggestions, advice, etc., is based largely on “estimates”--“estimates” which any student or careful observer of the Postoffice Department methods of figuring and accounting will readily discern are, in several particulars, somewhat “influenced,” if not, indeed, “fixed.”