If Mr. Hitchcock’s proposal, prompted, it would appear, by ulterior motives, as was recently evidenced by his _voluminous_ buttonholing of interested or “interests” Senators and Congressmen to put his “rider” over--no, maybe it is not really his, but _it looks like him_--for an increase on second-class matter would, if made operative, would so seriously impair the financial strength of five such _strong_ periodicals as those named, what, it is the part both of duty and of honesty to ask, will become of the _scores_ of smaller periodicals, especially of those periodicals which issue more than “two tons” at a mailing and which serve, inform and _educate_ a reading patronage that needs them? If Mr. Hitchcock’s actions in this matter are clean and open--not “influenced”--he might not only serve himself but a good and worthy cause as well, if he would give some pointers to these smaller publishers--those between his “4,000 pounds an issue” exemptions from his four-cent rate and the stronger periodical publications, five of which are before him in sworn statement. If he would give, I say, these middle-class publishers--we may so call them for the comparison in hand, though their published matter is of the _highest class_ all the time--if he would give such publishers some method or scheme to keep from the financial rocks, they, I am quite sure, would greatly appreciate it. Possibly they would put him on their free lists in perpetuity. Mr. Hitchcock appears to be a phenomenon at “figurin’” and for the devising of methods to obliterate postoffice “deficits;” also at following the ulterior motive and its “influence,” and still provide, by exemptions or otherwise, to protect the “fence-building” country newspapers,--indeed newspapers in general, now that I read him again. Likewise he protects the farm, the religious, the scientific, the mechanical and other publications whose influence, it appears, does not _obstructively_ influence the “influences” which have directed his recent action. I do not know who wrote that Senate Document No. 820. Whoever it was, he certainly knew “a gob of things,” as our splendid friend, the washerwoman, would put it, about the United States Postoffice Department, its management and its methods. I shall probably “crib” or plagiarize several times from this Senate Document No. 820, but just here I desire to quote a paragraph from it: “Postmaster General Hitchcock’s profound ignorance concerning the relation of magazine advertising to magazine profits is shown by the fact that although these magazines received in 1909, $2,463,940.39 for advertising, the aggregate of their net incomes was only $230,734.57,--less than one-tenth of their advertising receipts.” This Document No. 820 is all good, so good that I believe I will reprint from it further and at this point: