_The Times_[212] said: "The reference here is explicit, ... The specific question they were asked was the question to which, as our Correspondent says, the taxpayer really wants an answer--namely, are postal servants fairly paid ...? This question the Committee has neither answered nor attempted to answer. Passing by the terms of reference altogether, the Report declares that 'it is difficult'.... But, as an answer to the specific question addressed to the Committee; it is, in our judgment, in the literal sense of the word, impertinent. However, having rejected the criterion propounded to them by the Postmaster General, the Committee proposed to apply a criterion of their own...." The Committee made some general statements as to the rates of wages that should prevail in the public service. They were: "We think that Postal employees are justified in resting their claims to remuneration on the responsible and exacting[213] character of the duties performed and on the social position they fill as servants of the State. The State, for its part, does right in taking an independent course guided by principles of its own, irrespective of what others may do; neither following an example nor pretending to set one. It must always be remembered that in the working of a monopoly by the State, the interest of the public as a whole is the paramount consideration, and every economy consistent with efficiency must be adopted. The terms offered by the State should, however, be such as to secure men and women of the requisite character and capacity and ought to be such as will insure the response of hearty service." If one seeks to find in the foregoing statements an answer to the very matter-of-fact question whether the postal servants' wages are too high or too low, compared with wages in outside employment, he will have to conclude, with _Alice in Wonderland_, that "it seems very pretty, but it's rather hard to understand; somehow it seems to fill my head with ideas, only I don't know exactly what they are."