On the other hand, a review or a magazine may be said to be devoted to literature with perfect naturalness and propriety. For we rightly conceive of the review or magazine as one definite recognizable entity--a continuing whole, originated for a given purpose, and made up of similar parts having a common object--literature, for example, or art, or science, or whatever else it is to which the whole is devoted. Taking these words, originated and published for, dissemination, information, devoted to, they all point to one conclusion. They are, we repeat, strong and pregnant words. There is but one concept consistent with them all. We confidently submit that an attentive reading of the statute will leave no doubt that what Congress constantly had in mind in the creating of this privileged class of publications was the _universally recognized, commonly accepted, and perfectly well understood periodical of everyday speech_. In establishing the rate for newspapers and other periodical publications Congress was not seeking to discriminate between good literature and bad literature or to establish a _censorship of the press with prizes for merit_. The thing it had in mind was not the goodness or badness of the information disseminated, but the _instrumentalities by which that dissemination might be accomplished_. It was not thinking of all the accumulated stores of sound and pure literature in the vast libraries of the world, _but it was thinking of how the mind of an inquiring and progressive people might be kept abreast of the times in all departments of human thought and activity_. Congress did not stand hesitating between a good book and a bad newspaper. Another position taken by the Penrose-Overstreet Commission, and one which The Man on the Ladder strongly opposes, is that a periodical may not or “must not consist wholly or substantially of fiction.” The words just quoted are exactly the words used in the sixth paragraph of Section 2 of the bill the enactment of which this commission recommended. Now, whatever their wit or wisdom, their eloquence or adroitness of speech, their beauty of shape and apparel, or their loftiness of position, that “recommendation” should recommend the personnel of that commission, it seems to me, to some “wronghouse” for a long rest. Their conclusion, their _lex_ recommendation and their “argument” in support, taken collectively, are as thrilling, likewise amusing, as the point in a story “where the woman is turned on and begins to short circuit the hero,” putting it as near as I can remember in the language of Sewell Ford, Bowers, or some other “enlivening writer.”