As has previously been stated, and I believe well sustained by the facts, no business, however well established, can stand an increase of 300 per cent in the haulage and delivery cost of its output without sustaining great financial loss. The fair-minded reader will, I believe, agree that the publishers in presenting their case to Mr. Hitchcock, to the Penrose-Overstreet and other commissions, proved the truth of that statement quite conclusively. Well, if that be true, legislation of the sort proposed in the Hitchcock “rider” must necessarily, after adjudication, put all the lesser weeklies and monthlies (those not financially strong) out of business. Likewise hundreds of the smaller newspapers must discontinue issue. Of course, Mr. Hitchcock prattled about the newspapers not being affected by his proposed amendment. But, as previously stated, no court of justice in this country would sustain such a biased, prejudiced piece of class legislation as that proposed in the “rider.” CHAPTER VIII. WHO ARE AFFECTED. Let us see who really would be affected. As just cited there necessarily would be thousands of periodical publishers affected--virtually ruined. But, let us go down to things elemental in this question--_down to the stumpage_. The great educational white way of our periodical literature is builded upon _wood pulp_. In an opening paragraph of this volume I adverted to that fact. The chief pulp woods are spruce of the North--even of the distant North--and the Northwest. Then come cottonwood, basswood and soft maple, of the South, Southeast and New England. Of course, there are several other kinds of pulpwoods, but they are not used extensively for the manufacture of white paper, unless chemically treated, and such treatment makes them expensive. Of the pulpwoods I have named, spruce is far and away the most extensively used. From spruce is produced the best pulp. In “milling,” it shows body, fiber, strength--it gives toughness to the milled sheet or the Web roll. But that is enough. I am not an expert in pulp-wood stocks. The point I am trying to call to the reader’s attention is that _any legislation_ which cuts down the consumption of wood pulp must necessarily “affect” some other folks besides “a few magazine publishers.” First, a just adjudication of such a piece of legislation as that proposed in Mr. Hitchcock’s rider amendment would put from thirty to fifty per cent of our weaker (but excellent) periodicals on the financial rocks--put them out of business. They consume thousands of tons yearly of pulp-wood paper. It will, I think, be freely admitted that such periodicals would be out of--_forced out of_--the pulp-wood market--I mean out of the wood-pulp paper market, which amounts to the same thing.