As to the “straight matter” in these departmental reports, one often finds in it some most excellent suggestions, as is certainly the case with Mr. Hitchcock’s 1910 production. One also finds a lot of other suggestions and space-written stuff that would make a totem laugh--that is, of course, presuming a totem could laugh and had advanced as far as the third grammar school grade in reading. And the “literary style” of these official reports; so aerial in elevation, so officially dignified in “tone,” so profusely profound or profoundly profuse in elaboration and detail, and often so _trivial_ in significance or import! If they were still with us, the “literary” standard of most of these departmental reports would make Bertha M. Clay hug the rail and E. P. Roe carry weight. But, of course, one must not look for nor expect literary exaltedness in a departmental report. It should, however, tell us--_we people_--a good many things we wish to know, in fact, _ought_ to know. It should not give us too much talk merely to show us how much--or how little--some chief or assistant knows. If you get the opportunity, read the Postmaster General’s 1910 report, and you will find many things in it that will jar you loose from your expectations, but do not be alarmed at that. Just keep in mind the fact that you can come as near reciting the Rubaiyat backwards as can Postmaster General Hitchcock, and that you at least know Old Mother Hubbard “by heart” as well as he knows it. The point I am trying to make--to emphasize--is that Mr. Hitchcock’s 1910 report presents much valuable information for you and me. So you should not allow its follies to scare you off. For instance, the Postmaster General’s fifty notations of “Improvements in Organization and Methods.” Why he should stop at a round fifty I do not know. I believe he could easily have added twenty or thirty more _of kind_. Some of these “improvements” are most excellent; some of them are so assumedly conclusive on matters previously--for years--in doubt and controversy as to touch off the risibles in any man who has made anything like a careful study of conditions governing the Postoffice Department. For instance, his “Improvement” numbered 10 reads: “The successful completion of an _inquiry_ into the cost of handling and transporting mail of the several classes and of conducting the money order, registry and special delivery services.” We can _hope_ that the aforesaid “inquiry” was so carefully and comprehensively conducted as to entitle it to be classed as “successful” as Mr. Hitchcock’s statement is assertive. However, just how far we may prudently indulge such hope is a matter for grave consideration. The Postmaster General’s Third Assistant, James J. Britt, attempts to tell us (pp. 328-329, 1910 report), all about it. Mr. Britt will be referred to later.