I do not know the tonnage of those three cars. Local newspaper reports stated that there were 3,000,000 copies of one of the speeches. I take it that sixty tons is a low figure for the three carloads. The actual weight was probably nearer ninety tons. But leave it at sixty, the remailing in piece at bulk destination makes the weight 120 tons on which the Post office Department had to pay transportation, on sixty tons of which it also had to stand the expense of piece handling. (2) Another carload of Senatorial vocal effort passed through Chicago to a destination far west. I do not know, but presume it was in bulk, and on arrival, bulk was broken and the matter returned to mail for piece distribution. The reader must not overlook the fact that the character of matter carried in those four carloads was third-class--was _eight-cent-a-pound matter_. There were eighty tons or more of it in bulk and its remailing in piece would make it 160 tons. If a manufacturer, merchant or other business man put to mail 160 tons of third-class matter he would contribute to the postal service revenue just $25,600. (3) Three crates of fruit went into a mail car at one time, two cases of canned goods at another and a crate of tomatoes at another, without passing over the weighing scale. A drum of coffee, fifty to eighty pounds in weight, went to mail at another time, and a large sack of sawdust at another. Both of the last mentioned _went over the weighing scale before they went to the mail car_. I am speaking only of what casual or chance notice brought to my attention in three railway stations in Chicago. If similar or corresponding abuses were indulged at other stations here, as it is a legitimate inference they were, it is also a legitimate inference that similar abuses were, and are, practiced throughout the country, especially in cities of the first, second and third classes--in cities and towns on which has been conferred the distinguished honor of having their mail handled under the watchful eye and supervising care of a “Presidential Postmaster,” that is, by a postmaster appointed by the President _for partisan reasons and prospective uses_. Again going back to our mutton, I repeat the question, “What is the extent of this ‘franking’ and ‘penalty’ raid upon the revenues of the Postoffice Department?” I have cited three local instances merely to give a “hunch”--to blaze a line along which thoughtful people may safely think, and think to some fairly satisfying conclusion. I do not know the extent of the _lootage_ of postal revenues by the uses and abuses of those “frank” and “penalty” regulations. You do not know, and the present Postmaster General _admits_ he does not know, nor has he any means or method of ascertaining.