In a letter just received from Mr. W. D. Brown, editor of the _R. F. D. News_, he says: “When the Postoffice Committee submitted its report on March 6, it contained the statement that instead of a surplus in the postal revenues there was, up to that time, a deficit of more than $600,000.00 and I am satisfied that the amount will be greatly increased before the end of the current fiscal year.” In the _News_ of January 27, the issue to which Mr. DeGraw took exception, Editor Brown publishes a letter he wrote under date of January 11, 1912, to Mr. Charles A. Kram, Auditor of the Postoffice Department. He also publishes Mr. Kram’s reply. In comment on the reply, Mr. Brown says: “Auditor Kram’s reply throws very little light upon the subject, except to establish the fact that it is impossible to say at any time, whether the Postoffice Department is being conducted at a profit or a loss.” Next comes Congressman Moon, an admitted authority on postal affairs and Chairman of the House Committee of Postoffices and Post-Roads. I see by a press notice that Mr. Moon, in speaking to the question before his committee recently, stated that there was a “deficit of $627,845 for the fiscal year of 1911” in the Postoffice Department, instead of a surplus of $219,118.12, as published in its report, and over which Mr. Hitchcock and President Taft display so much luxuriant jubilation. We have probably presented sufficient testimony to evidence the fact that the figures presented by our Postoffice Department are numerously, if not unanimously, doubted among people who take upon themselves the trouble and the labor of looking into them. True, the three or four witnesses we have introduced do not agree as to the amount or magnitude of the shortages or discrepancies they have found, nor have they said, just where in the loose, bungled accounting they found the discrepancies. However, my purpose here is to show only that publicity of such bungled accounting does not enlighten or inform the public and that the practice of _charging the expenditures of one year to account of the next_ may easily be made to cloak and cover up much wasteful if, indeed, not dishonest expenditure. That being the case, the disagreement of our witnesses as to the amount of dollars and cents they severally have found to be mislaid, or not properly accounted for, can make little difference in the conclusion _forced_ by their testimony on any fair, inquiring mind. But, it may be argued by apologists for such misleading practice in accounting or by persons who would plead extenuating conditions for Mr. Hitchcock and others charged with administering federal postoffice affairs, that this loose, fraud-inviting practice is of long standing, that the present administration has not had time to correct and remedy the faulty practice and that the published showing of current years is correct, because it is made on the same basis as was the accounting for many previous years.