“No newspaper or other periodical shall be admitted to the second class unless it shall be made to appear by evidence, _satisfactory to the Postmaster General or his lawful deputy in that behalf_, that it complies with the following conditions.” Then follow the “conditions,” several of which I have already shown to be seriously objectionable. (7) I have already presented, under (5), some objections to the commission’s argument made in this seventh citation. I will, however, again say that the publication of fiction, other than immoral, in periodicals, does not, in my judgment at least, in any way infringe the “purpose of the act” of 1879. I will here go further, and say that the act of ’79 does _not_ comprehend in its “real purpose,” as the commission tries to make it appear at (7), that “the diffusion in the quickest possible way at the smallest possible cost of _timely_ information among the people”--that is, the act does not so purpose if the word “timely,” as here used, is intended to mean “news” or “currence of matter,” etc., as the commission elsewhere in its report argues for. In fact, the commission’s statement at (7) is further alee of the “real purpose” of the act of 1879 than is the publication of _any fiction_ in a periodical, and that too, whether the fiction be a reprint of some old production or the imaginative visualizations of some current writer who moved from periodical publication in 1908 or 1909 to print as a “best-seller” in 1910, or from a best seller in 1908-9 to periodical form in 1911. In short, the commission’s position regarding the publication of fiction in periodical form contravenes the “real purpose” of the law. So, also, does its position on several points it seeks to bolster in its report contravene the real purpose of that act, as I have previously shown, quoting in one instance the opinion of a Postmaster General’s counsel, which opinion the commission itself quoted to support a _false position_. I feel constrained to make another point against the stand this commission took against the admissibility to the second class mail rate privilege of periodicals largely devoted to fiction. It appears to me that these commissioners must have confined their reading in recent years largely to the older and so-called “classic” fiction, to professional tomes, to juridic opinions, attorney’s briefs, and to “booster” stuff for parties and candidates published in our newspapers. Certainly they could not have read much of the periodical fiction published by our high-class monthlies and weeklies. If they had done so, they would not, it seems to me, have written so loosely and _unwarrantedly_ of the “fiction” in their report. Had they read much of the fiction appearing in the leading periodicals during current and recent years, they would have learned at least two facts about it: