For this he merits our highest praise and commendation. Personally I yield it to him, untrammeled and in full meed. I object only to his attempt to saddle upon second-class mail--the one-cent-a-pound-matter--the burden of recouping the government for the losses on rural route and star route service and the railway mail pay stealage. I object because I not only believe, but I _know_ as comprehendingly and as comprehensively as does he, that the second-class matter carried in the mails today at one cent a pound _should be carried and handled at a profit at that rate_. I also know that just as second-class mail (periodicals), is cut down in distribution _in just about the same proportion will the revenue from first, third and fourth class mail be cut down_. It is because of this firm belief, that I oppose Mr. Hitchcock’s, to me, absurd purpose and attempt to make “each division or class of mail pay for its carriage and handling.” I am also opposing his manifest attempt to “play favorites” in legislation and to secure bureaucratic powers for his department--in contravention of my constitutional rights--to _your_ constitutional rights. I take the following from the New York Call of August 26. The Call captions it as “Hitchcock’s Sum Up.” It evidences the fact that he still follows his folly--that he is still after those “few magazine publishers” and after them, too, on his “rider” lines. The Call reports as follows: “The attorneys for the magazines,” said Postmaster Hitchcock in summing up the government’s case, “have presented this matter of advertising in magazines in such a way as to leave the impression that there is a controversy over it. There is none. _The department knows that the advertising matter in magazines produces first-class mail_ and that the postoffice is benefited in that way. The important question is: What effect will a whole increase of 1 cent a pound have on the advertising? Will it be the means of stopping it? “We feel that advertising would not be diminished by such an increase and if such is the case, all this information which we have heard today, interesting as it may be, is not to the point. Repeatedly we have heard the general argument against an increase in rates as though our recommendation is for a general increase. We don’t want that at all. What we are driving at is a readjustment. We are not trying to economize or save money. We have done that to the best of our ability already and want simply to increase the second-class rate so that the first will pay for itself, believing that in this way the greater number of people will be served.”