Again: Mr. Hitchcock in his No. 11 “Improvement,” reports “the successful prosecution of an inquiry into the cost _to the railroad companies_ of carrying the mails, the result of which will form a _reliable basis_ for fixing rates of pay for railroad mail transportation.” Now, if Mr. Hitchcock has really and truly so conducted an “inquiry” as to ascertain a “_reliable basis_” of pay for the mail haulage service rendered by the railroads--“a reliable basis” that can be built upon, acted upon and _enforced_--if he has done that, then he deserves a niche in the Hall of Fame. But here, again, I am doubtful. Did you take Britt’s word for it, Mr. Hitchcock, or did you steer the “inquiry” yourself? The only point of interest to us of the commonalty involved in your eleventh improvement is: Can you, or any other Postmaster General, compel or persuade the railroads to carry the mail at a reasonable rate? Will such rate be based upon that “reliable basis” you say you have ascertained? Grant us but that and we shall ask no more nor will you have any “deficits” to worry about. I know you explain quite fully (pp. 18-20), as to how you went about it, how Congress made appropriation for a force of “temporary clerks” to tabulate the information, the data which your “successful” inquiry brought to the surface. Still, knowing something about the _devious_ peculiarities of the railways in the past--say, back to the Wolcott investigation (at this moment I forget the year when this was made and have neither the time nor the opportunity to climb down and look it up)--unless the railways have had a rush of honesty and conscience into their reports, accounts and _practices_, I am gravely _doubtful_ as to the dependability of the data your “inquiry” uncovered. Of course, if you went after them, backed by a court order calling for a showdown, Mr. Hitchcock, you may have arrived somewhere in the vicinity of the facts. Otherwise--well, you got about what other _inquirers_ got--_got what the railways wanted you to know_. I shall make no further specific reference to the fifty improvements the Postmaster General claims to have covered into operative effectiveness. It is due, however, that I say, in this connection, that the majority of those named in the report are sound, sane and _serviceably_ economic. It is also due from me to say that I personally know that Mr. Hitchcock has already made a number of them effectively operative in his department and to the betterment of its service. My contention with the Postmaster General is chiefly concerning three points, viz.: _First_--His manifest intent to throw the burden of his departmental deficit upon a few _independent_ periodicals which, by reason of their independence, have indulged the proclivity or practice of _telling the truth about corporate, vested and other favored interests, and about corrupt officials--city, county, state, national, executive, legislative and juridic_.