Second, There is probably just as high a moral code--just as high a standard and practice of veracity--among the periodical publishers of this country as there is among officials of the Federal Postoffice Department. I am of opinion that few, indeed, among my readers will be found to question the fairness of that statement. Especially will they not question it when they take into consideration the fact _that pages of the publishers’ testimony were under oath, or jurat_. CHAPTER VII. POSTAL REVENUES FROM ADVERTISING. Now, the Postmaster General’s whole talk--his whole word-splutter--was, it seems, to create an impression that the government was losing millions annually _because of the large amount of advertising matter distributed by magazines and other periodicals_. On the other hand, the publishers in their “Exhibit F,” and elsewhere, try to show, and in the writer’s opinion _do_ show quite conclusively and dependably, that the excess of expenditure over receipts in the Postoffice Department would be _two to four times greater than it now is were it not for the first, third and fourth class revenues resulting directly from those advertising pages in our periodical literature_. Before giving these publishers a chance to tell the truth, as presented in their “Exhibit F,” I desire to make a few remarks about the point under consideration--the profits to the _government from periodical advertising_. The publishers present the evidence of their counting-rooms--the _inside_ testimony. I desire to present some outside testimony. I may present it in an awkward, raw way, but I have a conceit that the “jury” will give it consideration. Three months ago, there was a “party at our house.” No, it was not a bridge party. Mrs. M. On The L. has, in my visual range, I can here assure you, many commendable virtues--meritorious qualities and qualifications. Likewise, she has some faults. The latter I cannot, if the dove of peace is to continue perching on our domicile lodge pole, mention here. I may, however, say with entire safety, that “bridge” and alleged similar feminine amusements are not among them. The party to which I advert was a “tea.” The guests were six,--Mrs. M. On The L. serving. The guests not only had “the run” of the house, but they _took possession of it_. I stuck to my “den” until it was invaded and then--well, then, my dear trousered reader, I did precisely what you would have done. I backed off--I surrendered. “What was the result?”