One would naturally suppose that the stamps would be ordered in this condition from the manufacturers, and we think they were; but no further light is thrown upon the matter by the Reports, and other facts that persist in intruding themselves have given rise to a theory that the Department either bought perforating machines of its own and operated upon the stock on hand, or engaged some local concern to perforate the stock in question. This _might_ have been done, but if so why were the 7-1/2 and 10 pence stamps omitted? Again, had such been the case, it is passing strange that the 1/2 penny, issued unperforated but two months before the date of the report, should be approximately twice as common in that state as perforated. In the case of the 3d., taking stock on hand the 30th September, 1857, and subsequent deliveries, two-fifths of the entire issue should have been perforated, which would make the latter stamps almost as common as the earlier issues; while in the case of the 6d., under similar conditions, almost the same ratio holds, the figures being a trifle more in favor of the perforated series. This does not conform with facts at all, and it can hardly be explained by supposing that a relatively small stock of but three values was operated upon in 1857 and the improvement then dropped for a couple of years. For further proof of the incorrectness of this theory we think the following fact speaks for itself. Appended to each Postmaster General's Report are various tables of expenditures. One of these statements is headed:-- "Sums paid in discharge of Tradesmen's Bills," and in it are found the amounts paid to various parties named for all kinds of supplies furnished the Department. This is where the payments to the engravers of the stamps appear, as well as items for cancelling stamps, post-marks, etc. Now a careful examination of all items for the years 1857, 1858 and 1859 fails to disclose any payment either for purchase of a perforating machine or for having the stamps perforated by outside parties. This may be "negative evidence" but we feel that it has its due weight. Nevertheless, we find at least two other perforations on stamps of this issue besides the regulation gauge 12, which has made it appear to some that the Department might have experimented with means of separation before settling definitely on the type adopted. The stamp operated upon was the 3d., probably as being the most commonly employed value, which would naturally be the case were the perforations the efforts of private parties. The first "irregular" perforation was listed by Major Evans[60] as gauging 13, and the London Society's work lists it as well, probably following the earlier catalog. But Messrs. Corwin and King state:[61]--"This perforation is totally unknown in America, and we doubt its existence." Neither the Pack nor the Worthington collection contains a copy and we think it can be passed by. [60] A Catalogue for Collectors, page 33.