The foregoing quotations are sufficient to show that the printing trades of the nation are awake to the industrial significance of legislation of the Hitchcock “rider” nature, likewise that they are equally wideawake to the purpose of Mr. Hitchcock--ulterior or other--in his attempt to _stealth_ such legislation into operative law. How many people are employed in the printing trades in this country? I do not know. In Chicago alone there are, at a safe estimate, not less than 40,000. A representative of the organized pressmen of New York before the Postal Commission testified that there were 12,000 pressmen in New York City and that _six thousand of these_ were employed on presses which print monthly and weekly magazines. I have no later statistics by me than a 1905 report touching the number of men and women employed in the printing trades in this country. From the figures given for 1905, however, it may be conservatively stated that the number of persons in this nation who today are earning their shelter, apparel and subsistence (not counting the office or clerical forces) in our great printing and publishing industries is somewheres around 400,000. If the counting-room and general office forces are included the total number--not counting owners or publishers--will reach at least 450,000. Now, if we total the people who would be affected by legislation which must force a shrinkage of from 30 to 50 per cent in the consumption of wood pulp paper, counting from the timber cruisers to the publication counting-rooms, we shall find that total to be not less than 700,000--probably 800,000. And, mark you, you fair-minded, conscientious reader, that total does not include the wives and children dependent upon the vast army of men employed in our printing industries--dependent for shelter, clothing and food. If they are counted, the figures I have just given must be doubled--probably tripled. So, there must be not less than two, probably _two and a half_, millions of people,--men, women, wives and children--who would be affected by legislation of the Hitchcock “rider” character. It is needless, but I must still point out that not _one_ of these millions of industrial _earners_ nor their dependents who would be injuriously, if indeed not disastrously affected, by legislation of the nature Mr. Hitchcock is so persistently, if not _unscrupulously_, pressing to force into operative law, _is a magazine publisher_. Most certain is it that none of this vast multitude of our industrial citizens and their dependents can be thought of, nor even imagined, as being counted among those “few magazine publishers” who, Mr. Hitchcock is reported to have repeatedly asserted, would alone be affected by his proposed harsh, discriminating and, therefore, unjust legislation. CHAPTER IX. MR. HITCHCOCK STILL AFTER THE MAGAZINES.