Separate and apart from the fact that this proposed amendment violates the Constitution of the United States and the rules of the Senate, I regard such method of legislation as unwise, if not reprehensible, for the reason that, in effect, it is a denial of the right to be heard by those who are deeply interested in it. Over a year ago the periodical publishers affected desired to be heard in this matter, and were not given a proper hearing on this vital question. Indeed, they appear to have been left under the impression that nothing would be done in regard to the matter; or, at all events, they seem to have been under this impression. When the matter came before the House of Representatives and the committee having the matter in charge, no discussion of this matter took place. No report on it was made. No opportunity to be heard was afforded. Neither was the matter discussed on the floor of the House. When the postoffice appropriation bill came to the Senate, _no hearing was afforded, but at the last minute_, after the committee had practically concluded every item on the appropriation bill, this item was presented, not only giving the periodical publishers no opportunity to be heard, but giving the members of the committee no opportunity to study this matter and to digest it. I regard it as grossly unfair, and at the time in the committee I reserved the right to oppose this amendment on the floor of the Senate. _In the affairs affecting our internal administration I am strongly opposed to any secrecy._ In my judgment, the claim made by the Postoffice Department _is erroneous on its face_, for the obvious reason that it is conceded that these magazines are brought by express and distributed in Washington, D. C., over 250 miles from New York, at less than 1 cent a pound for cost of transportation and distribution. The Postoffice Department declares that it costs 9 cents a pound. _This is a mere juggling of figures._ I have no doubt that if a proper weighing of the mails was observed, and if the railways were to carry the mails at a reasonable rate, this distribution could be made at a cost approximately _that which I have named_, as illustrated by the cost of distribution in Washington City, which is an undisputed fact. After presenting the publishers’ “Exhibit A,” in which they refute Mr. Hitchcock’s unfounded assertions of colossal profits in the magazine publishing business--a subject which I treat elsewhere--the Senator presents their “Exhibit B,” which counters the Postmaster General’s claim that the proposed increase in rate would yield a large revenue to the government. “Exhibit B” reads as follows:--