(6) The adoption of an accounting plan that insures _the prompt deposit in the Treasury_ of postal funds not immediately required for disbursement at postoffices, _thus making available for use by the department_ several millions of dollars that, under the old practice, would be tied up in postoffices. In his 1909-10 report, Mr. Hitchcock sets forth _fifty_ “improvements” in methods of handling and conducting the business of the Postoffice Department--improvements made _prior_ to June 30, 1910, mind you. Well, the foregoing quotation presents numbers 5 and 6 of the enumerated 50 “improvements” that were set up as having already been instituted--instituted prior to June 30, 1910. Beyond saying that the department has certainly had ample _time_ to install and make operative the improvements in methods of handling its business and of accounting, which its published reports claim to have been made, comment is unnecessary. If the improvements, as _twice_ claimed in the two annual reports from which I have quoted have been made, then, it is pertinent to ask: Why was _over seven millions_ of 1909-10 expenditures carried to 1910-11 account? Such a showing excuses another question--excuses it because it _invites_ the question: What amount--how _many millions of dollars_--of 1910-11 unpaid bills and claims was carried over to become a charge against the fiscal year 1911-12? Oh, yes, I am fully aware that this may be all readily explained by saying that the claimed improvements as set forth have nothing whatever to do with the practice of carrying forward unpaid bills of one fiscal year and making them a charge against the receipts of the next or some subsequent fiscal year. Such an explanation is easily understood, _because it does not explain_. That is, it is an explanation which, to be _believably_ understood, requires more explaining than do the faults and crooks in the method of accounting it attempts to explain. That the “fumbling” of this carrying-over practice _needs_ correction--needs _abolishment_--will be seen from a glance at the two following tabulations. That the practice also makes the departments’ annual showing of the _results_ of the business of the year--any year--almost valueless is also made evident--that is, valueless so far as real, dependable information is concerned as to whether the postal service is conducted at a loss or at a profit. The first tabulation following shows the published figures for the fiscal year’s expenses as given in the departmental reports. It also shows what the expenses of the fiscal years indicated really were, when their unpaid bills (as shown by the next annual report of the department) are charged against them.