“If every fact has been adduced that would lead to a proper conclusion as to what the pay ought to be, if we are to go again over the same field of investigation with no possibility of any more light, tell me what sense there is in expending the public money for that purpose? And, then the very minute you undertake to reach the correct result you are confronted with a proposition that you cannot justly charge the cost of transportation and handling to a class of matter flatly _that in itself produces a return to the government in another class of matter, probably in excess of the charges of transportation and handling of that matter itself_--the second class. How are you to draw the lines for the determination of these questions? You are in the dark; it is a chaotic proposition, considering the method by which it must be determined today.” I take it, that however much they may differ from him in his political and economic views, readers recognize in William Randolph Hearst one of the most alert and best informed men in this country on the subject of publishing and distributing periodical literature. He certainly ranks among the largest, if he is not indeed the largest, publisher and distributer of newspapers and other periodical prints there is in this country,--yes, I may say, in the world. On February 24, 1911, a letter over Mr. Hearst’s signature appeared in the Washington Post. In this communication he touches upon the efficiency--rather the inefficiency--of the Postoffice Department in handling the postal service of this country. I would like to reproduce the letter entire, but cannot. I will, however, reprint some of its cogent statements which bear largely upon the point under consideration. Mr. Hearst says: I know something about the cost of distribution of publications. I know something about the reasons for the excessive cost of distribution of the postoffice. And I say that the high cost of distribution in the postoffice is largely due to loose and careless and reckless methods, to antiquated systems and incompetent management. It is estimated that 40 per cent of the charged weight of mail matter is composed of cumbersome mail bags and their heavy iron locks and fastenings. How absurd to imagine that a man who wanted to break into a mail bag would be deterred by a ponderous lock. The postoffice department might as well insist that a burglar-proof lock be affixed to every letter, under the inane impression that the only way to tear open a letter would be to pick a lock. I know, too, personally and positively, of an instance where the great mass of western mail was sent over one railroad and when the bulk of it was transferred to another railroad, all the postal clerks previously employed were maintained on the first railroad for over two years after the mail had been transferred.