The testimony taken by the commission at these hearings, with statements submitted in writing by publishers not orally heard, boards of trade, and the like, and other data collected by the commission in the course of its investigations, _together with a complete digest of such testimony, are embodied in the record of its proceedings submitted with this report_. To the end of getting our corner stakes properly located in order to run our lot-lines correctly, I desire to quote further from the report of this 1906-7 commission. It says some pertinent things and _says them hard_. Before quoting, however, I desire to amplify a little on the character of that commission, on the general character of the men composing it as indicated in their official and public action. The first point of interest for us commoners to note and appreciate is that the photographs of none of them, so far as I have been able to learn, have appeared in the rogues’ gallery. We may therefore presume that they are not only intelligent but “square” men--men worthy of Mr. Hitchcock’s consideration and respect as well as our own. The second point worthy of note in considering the personnel of that commission is that none of them, so far as public reports show, ever had the advantages and opportunities of acquiring that peculiar and specialized knowledge of federal postal affairs, second-class or other, which may accrue to men from a postgraduate course in national party management. In this connection, however, it may be said that some members of the commission may have come _near_ to such unusual opportunities as just mentioned for acquiring expert knowledge of the classification, transportation and handling of second-class mail. It is also fitting for me to say in speaking of the gentlemen composing that 1906-7 commission that, so far as I have been able to look up their biographies in the Congressional Directory and elsewhere, I find nothing to indicate that any of them ever tried to rob a smokehouse nor have any of them ever tried to put over any piece of “frame-up” legislation of the nature of Mr. Hitchcock’s “rider,” printed on a previous page--_legislation to hobble, punish or ruin periodicals honest enough and independent enough to tell the truth to a hundred millions of people_. The foregoing are some of the reasons--there are many others--why I think the membership of that Penrose-Overstreet Commission of 1906-7 was possessed of an ability, character and qualification to have commanded Mr. Hitchcock’s careful consideration of the information and data the commission so carefully collated, after thorough investigation, and submitted with its official report. “Maybe he did make a careful study of that collated data?”