It’s too complicated for me. I never had the advantage of hulling3 beans in Massachusetts. My cornfield arithmetic was all acquired in Illinois. So, instead of permitting myself to become enmeshed in Mr. Hitchcock’s figures, I shall resort to my frequently used tactics. I shall quote.
I have before me several analyses of Mr. Hitchcock’s peculiar application of the “double-rule-of-three,” as the schoolmaster used to call it down in that little school house at the cross roads in District 6, Town. 17, R. 3 E. The schoolmaster used to divide his time between “’rithmetic” and lamming. I graduated with honors in the latter. ’Rithmetic never seemed to take kindly4 to me—save to push me along in the lamming course. But——
Well, that is sufficient explanation to the reader to give broad, likewise legitimate5, grounds for excusing me if I dodge6, or try to dodge, Mr. Hitchcock and his Third Assistant when they get down to “figerin’.”
Candidly7 I am at a loss to know why young men of their physical robustness8 and their abnormal—yes, phenomenal—super-excellence in the matter of figuring things out, should be frittering away their time on a loafing job with the government. They ought to be holding down the chairs of Mathematics and of Expert Accounting10 at Onion Run University, or at some other advanced institution of learning.
But, as previously11 intimated, I am going to quote—am going to let someone else into the maelstrom12 of official figures.
I would not, however, have the reader think for a minute that I[92] lacked the courage to take the plunge13 myself. Not at all. I know my limitations. Mr. Hitchcock is not only a graduate of Harvard, but he is a graduate of two Republican party campaign committees. I’d be perfectly14 willing to take chances against Harvard in any game of figuring, but when it comes to sitting into the game with a graduate in two courses of party campaign figuring, one as Secretary and the other as Manager of the National Republican Committee,—well, when it comes to that, I believe the reader will excuse me if I push some more expert arithmeticians to the front.
I will first quote from the 1907 Joint15 Commission which investigated costs of second-class mail haulage and handling, and then I will quote the publishers whose figures Senator Owen so pertinently17 presented in connection with his remarks when speaking in opposition18 to the rider, February 25, 1911.
Being perfectly familiar with the proceedings19 of the Senate Committee on Postoffices and Postroads, he must, necessarily, have learned something from the publishers who came with the open, frank—yes, certified—information as to their business. Likewise, he must have got fairly well acquainted with Mr. Hitchcock and also have learned something of his promotive methods of figuring.
I have, as yet, not had the pleasure—the honor—of meeting Senator Owen or his strong, clean minded, clean acting20 colleague, Senator Gore21, but I like them.
Why?
Because they stand on the floor of the Senate and fight—fight for what is right.
Now that I have a copy before me, I will proceed to quote from that report made by the 1907 commission—a commission which dug up more information regarding the haulage and handling of second-class mail matter than Mr. Hitchcock could possibly have gathered in two years as head of the Postoffice Department. The commission was composed of Senators Penrose, Carter and Clay and Congressmen Overstreet, Moon and Gardner, men far better informed as to federal postal22 affairs than is Postmaster General Hitchcock.
This commission was authorized23 by Congress to make inquiry24 regarding second-class mail matter. The reader may remember that I made reference to this report on a previous page. It presents much information and collated25 data, which, if Mr. Hitchcock had studiously[93] read would have enabled him to avoid many of the egregious27 blunders he has made at frequent intervals28 during the past two years when discussing the subject. It would, at any rate, have prudently30 curbed32 or restrained what appears in Mr. Hitchcock to be a native or acquired tendence to volume or tonnage in talk when he is speaking of second-class mail matters or of the publication and distribution of periodical literature. I do not concur33 in a number of the conclusions of this commission as presented in its report, but no fair-minded man can read that report without being convinced that the commissioners34 delved35 into the subjects of the classification of second-class mail matter and the cost, to the government, of its haulage and handling most earnestly; also as thoroughly36 and as deeply as the lack of organization in the Postoffice Department and its antiquated37, careless and inaccurate38 accounting left it possible for anyone to go.
This commission began its sessions in New York, October 1, 1906. It sent advance notice to all the organizations of publishers in the country, to publishers not in organization, to editorial associations, to boards of trade, mercantile, commercial and trades associations and to other individuals and organizations that might be interested, directly or indirectly39, in the subject matter to be investigated. It invited them to present their views, complaints, objections and suggestions in writing and also to send representatives to present their views and their grievances40, if any, to the commission in person. The notice and invitation of the commission met with a large response from the newspapers and other periodical publishers, also from other individuals and associations interested in the distribution of periodical literature by reason of the commercial, educational, religious, fraternal, scientific or other benefits such literature conveyed to the people.
At the suggestion of this commission, the Postoffice Department prepared and delivered to it “an elaborate statement with exhibits” to show the “defects of the existing statute42 as developed in actual operation.” Also, the then Postmaster General, Mr. George B. Cortelyou, his Second Assistant, Mr. W. S. Shallenberger, and his Third Assistant, Mr. Edwin C. Madden, prepared and presented personal statements to the commission.
Now some readers may wonder why I so particularly present the work done by this commission for their consideration at this point in my discussion of the general subject we have under consideration. In[94] view of my previous statement, to the effect that I do not agree with some of the conclusions of this “Penrose-Overstreet Commission” some reader may wonder why I make reference to it at all. Well, there are several reasons why I do so and do it just at this point in the consideration of our general subject. Among those reasons are, briefly43 stated, the following:
The inquiry and investigation44 of this commission were broad, comprehensive and thorough.
Its report presents many arguments, recommendations and conclusions which must appeal to any man who is fairly well informed as to our federal postal service, as sound and sensible, however widely he may differ from the commission’s conclusions on some other points covered in its report.
Some readers who have seen and read the Penrose-Overstreet Commission’s report may possibly have concluded that it presents all the information collected and collated by the commission. The reader so concluding would, almost necessarily, think the information it presents insufficient45, both in subject matter and in detail, to be as helpful to the Postmaster General as, on a previous page, I have asserted the work of this commission would be to Mr. Hitchcock, or would have been had he taken the trouble to consult the voluminous but carefully collated data gathered by the 1906-7 commission and on file in his department.
I will here quote a few lines from the report of the Penrose-Overstreet Commission in proof of the fact that its inquiry, investigations47 and work provided Postmaster General Hitchcock, had he but taken the time to consult it, a store of information vastly greater than that presented in its brief official report of sixty-three pages.
Read the following and you will readily understand why Representative Moon, on March 3, 1911, so strenuously49 objected to the appointment of another second-class mail commission and to spending $50,000 more of the people’s money to investigate a matter already thoroughly and comprehensively investigated and to collect and collate26 data which is already on file in the Postoffice Department. The quotation50 is from page 6 of the commission’s report. The italics are the writer’s:
In accordance with this plan, (outlined in immediately preceding paragraphs), which operated to economize51 the time as well of the commission as of[95] those appearing before it, a great volume of evidence was presented upon all aspects of the question from the standpoint both of the postal service and of the publications involved
…
The testimony52 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 embodied53 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 pertinent16 things and says them hard. Before quoting, however, I desire to amplify54 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 worthy55 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 specialized56 knowledge of federal postal affairs, second-class or other, which may accrue57 to men from a postgraduate58 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[96] 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 possessed59 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?”
Yes, maybe he did. But if he did, then much of the “student discipline” and of the “study habit,” which graduates of Harvard are presumed to have acquired, must have lapsed60 in the shuffle61 of the cards from which recent years have dealt his hands. I say this respectfully as well as candidly.
I cannot think of it as possible for a man of Mr. Hitchcock’s known intellectual gauge62 to read—studiously read—the facts as presented in the testimony before that 1906-7 commission, or so read even the 63-page official report signed by five of the commissioners (Representative Gardner being ill at the time the report was submitted)—I cannot, I say, think it possible for any man of Mr. Hitchcock’s admitted intelligence to read that testimony, collated data and report, and then proceed to talk or write so wide of known facts as does he in parts of his 1909 and 1910 reports and in his letters to Senator Penrose, printed in previous pages.
It may be—yes, it is most probable—that the commission did not dig out all the facts. But admitting that, the further admission must be made by any fair-minded man that most of the facts it did dig out appear to be the very facts which Postmaster General Hitchcock ignored—ignored with the self-centered nonchalance63 of a “short story” cowboy when “busting” a broncho before an audience.
I shall now present a few statements from the report of that commission, first quoting some of the arguments presented by publishers who appeared at its hearings personally or by representatives, or who presented their views in writing on the various phases of the questions under consideration. The quotations64 made, the reader must understand to be the commission’s summary of what the publishers testified to, criticised or recommended, and not the full testimony or reports as made by the publishers.
[97]
I have taken the liberty to italicize certain phrases and sentences in these quotations, my purpose being, of course, to bring the points so italicized more particularly to the reader’s notice:
The primary purpose and function of the postal service being the transportation of government and letter mail, second, third, and fourth class matter are not strictly65 chargeable with that proportion of the total cost of the service which would be equivalent to their proportion of total weight or volume, but these secondary classes, on the contrary, are chargeable only with that fraction of total cost which would remain after deducting66 all expenses of installation and general management involved in the maintenance of a complete postal service for government and letter mail. This method of computation should be applied67 not only in respect of the expenses of administration and handling, but especially in respect of the expense of railway mail transportation, in which, by reason of the sliding scale of payment, the additional burden of second-class matter entailed68 but an infinitesimal additional cost. As an illustration of this point, attention was drawn69 to the statement of Dr. Henry C. Adams, in his report to the commission of 1898 (p. 404), that if the volume of mail had been decreased so that the ton-mileage had been 169,809,000 instead of 272,000,000, the railway mail pay would have been practically the same.
In other words, the argument is that the true cost of second-class matter is merely that part of total cost which would be saved if second-class matter were now eliminated.
The foregoing is from page 9 of the commission’s report. On the same page of the report it gives a summary of another set of reasons presented by the publishers in their argument in support of their contention70 that the mail rate on second-class matter should be low:
That second-class matter, by reason of the fact that it is handled largely in bulk in full sacks already routed and separated and requires little or no handling by the railway mail service or the force at the office of mailing and of delivery, is in fact the least expensive class of matter. With respect to the proportion so routed and separated, it was variously estimated by the publishers as from 70 to 93 per cent of the total weight. The assistant postmaster at New York fixed71 the percentage for his office at 67 per cent, and the assistant postmaster at Chicago estimated it, for the country at large, to be between 50 and 60 per cent.
The representative of the American Newspaper Publishers’ Association, speaking for the metropolitan72 daily press, stated that less than 6 per cent of their circulation went into the mail at all, in many instances the proportion being as low as two-thirds of 1 per cent; that the radius73 of circulation was not more than 150 miles; that their mailings averaged 49 pounds per sack, and that 93 per cent of all second-class matter going out of New York city, for example, was already sorted and routed. It was admitted, however, that while the newspapers avail themselves of express and railway transportation for matter sent out in bulk, single copies sent to individual subscribers invariably went by mail.
[98]
Postmaster General Hitchcock appears to have largely ignored the fact so clearly pointed75 out by the publishers in 1906—yes, pointed out as long ago as 1898—that second-class mail matter is a large producer of the revenues received by the government from mail matter of the first, third and fourth classes. Following is a summary of what the publishers pointed out to the 1906-7 commission:
There is an immense indirect revenue on second-class matter, due to the fact that second-class matter is itself the cause of a great volume of first-class matter, upon which the department reaps a handsome profit. While the extent to which first-class matter is thus indebted to second-class matter is necessarily indeterminate, attempts were made to illustrate76 it by particular instances. This was done by computing77 the amount of first-class mail arising, first, from the direct correspondence between a publisher and the readers, and secondly78, from correspondence, between the readers and the advertisers, resulting from the insertion of the advertisements. In the instances chosen, the first-class matter thus stimulated79 appeared to be very considerable. Upon this basis it was argued that any reduction in the volume of second-class matter would inevitably80 be followed by a corresponding reduction in first-class matter. This would not only deprive the Postoffice Department of the revenue from the first-class matter, but by diminishing the total weight of the mails would correspondingly increase the rate of mail pay, so that the net result of the elimination81 of the socially valuable second-class matter would be an actual increase in the total cost of the service.
The foregoing is taken from pages 12 and 13 of the commission’s report. I desire to quote further from page 13—four paragraphs—and I urge they be read with care. The reader, too, should remember that this is not all that the publishers said on the points touched upon. It is, however, no doubt a fair epitome82 or summary of what they said or wrote to the commission. The reader should also keep in mind the fact that what they said and wrote was said and written in 1906, and all they said and wrote is on file and easily accessible to Postmaster General Hitchcock:
Within an average radius of 500 miles the express companies and railways stand willing to transport second-class matter, in bulk packages weighing not less than 5 to 10 pounds to a single address or to be called for, at rates actually lower than the second-class postage rate. Inasmuch as the average haul of second-class matter was reported by the Wolcott commission (p. 319), to be but 438 miles, it is impossible that the government should lose anything upon the transportation of this class of matter, or if in fact it should be found to be doing so, the loss must arise from an overpayment to the railways.
Even if it should be found that second-class matter was being carried at a distinct loss, that loss would be entirely83 justified84 by the educational value of the periodical press. From the beginning of the republic it had been the policy of[99] Congress to foster and assist the dissemination85 of information and intelligence among the people. Next to the great public school systems maintained by the states, the newspaper and periodical are the chief agency of social progress and enlightenment. So far from this being a subsidy86 to the publisher the advantage of the low postage rate had been passed on to the subscriber74 in the form of a better periodical and a more efficient service. Any substantial increase in the postal rates, while for the time being bearing heavily on the publisher, must eventually fall upon the subscriber, either in the form of an increased price for his reading matter or of a deterioration87 in the quality of that matter.
The correct method of dealing88 with the question of cost is to treat the service as a whole, and if the revenue for the whole service, including allowance for government mail, meets the cost of the whole service, it is immaterial whether each class of that service pays its own cost, or even whether the cost of one class has to be made up by a greater charge upon other classes.
With respect to rates, with the exception of some of the representatives of the stockyards journals, periodical publications were a unit against any increase. It was urged that the periodical publishing business has been built up on the present second-class rates, and that a change from 1 cent a pound to 4 cents, as suggested by the Third Assistant Postmaster General, would cripple, if not destroy, every existing periodical. While some would, perhaps, be able to adjust their business to the new rates and survive, the majority would perish, and the loss would fall heaviest on the smaller and weaker periodicals.
We will next note some things which that 1906-7 commission said on its own account or quotes some one in whose opinion they concurred89 or did not, as the case might be.
Some pages back, I told the reader, in effect, that while this commission’s official report was a good one, presenting some valuable suggestions, I did not agree with certain of its recommendations and conclusions. Now, any adverse90 criticisms I intend to make concerning that report are, I think, best made right here, after which I will quote a few paragraphs from it which I believe highly commendable91. There are many suggestions and recommendations that I believe would be of great value did the department but act upon them, and the vast amount of data the commission collected and made a digest of would, had he but looked into it carefully, most certainly have persuaded Postmaster General Hitchcock to speak and write less loosely on the subjects of second-class mail rates and periodical publication and distribution, induced him to talk in a way that would not leave the impression with studious, thoughtful auditors92 and readers that he got his opinions at a bargain sale during its rush hours.
I shall comment adversely93 on but a few points of the commission’s[100] report. Three of its members (Senators Carter and Clay and Representative Overstreet) have passed—not off the edge of life but to official retirement94, or, maybe, to the political morgue. They, in time, may be able to “come back.” The Man on the Ladder has heard varied95 opinions—some of them decidedly variegated96, too—anent the probability of those three gentlemen coming back. Personally I am not sufficiently97 acquainted with their official service careers to justify98 the expression of an opinion of them. If, while in office, they directed their efforts and activities to a service of their constituents99 and the interests of the people in general, let us hope they may “come back.” On the other hand, if while in office they were but working models of the so-called “practical” politician, then, as a matter both of self-respect and of duty, we must hope they stay in the morgue.
“The ‘practical’ politician is the working politician.”
Well, yes, that may be. But most of those within range of my vision from the ladder top appear to be devoting their most active and strenuous48 industry to “working” the people.
No, I do not like that type of human animal popularly designated as a “practical” politician. Especially do I not like him in public office—executive, legislative100 or judicial101—elective or appointive, and I have run the lines on a good many of them. Most of them when in positions of official power and opportunity act as if their consciences had been handed down in original packages direct from their jungle ancestors. At any rate most of those in positions of official power and authority seem to follow one working rule, and follow it, too, both industriously103 and consistently.
To conceal104 one theft, steal more.
The typical “practical” politician, when holding down a public office, usually holds-up the people. They pose and talk as courageous105 patriots106 and large thinkers. Under close scrutiny107, however, most of them will show up or show down merely as discreet108 private or personal interest liars109.
But I have permitted my field glass to ramble110 from the specific to the general. Whether the three passed members of the 1906-7 commission are politically dead or taking only a temporarily enforced rest, the situation is one which suggests the propriety111 of that subdued112 and respectful tone one is expected to use when standing113 by as a friend is lowered to an enforced rest.
[101]
I shall now offer my strictures of a few recommendations made by the 1906-7 commission and of some of the arguments the commission’s report offers to their support.
The first objection I find to the report of this Penrose-Overstreet Commission is that several of its paragraphs indicate that the commission appears to have been afflicted114 with Mr. Hitchcock’s current ailment—an ingrown idea that some action, legislative or other, must be taken in order to curb31 the circulation growth and keep down the piece or copy-weight of periodicals. To The Man on the Ladder such an idea is not only faulty to the point of foolishness but it violates long established and successfully applied business practices in the transportation and handling of goods or commodities, whatever their character. The idea, it would appear, is based upon an oft-repeated but nevertheless false statement of fact, to the effect that the government is losing money in the carriage and handling of second-class mail at the cent-a-pound rate.
The falsity of that statement I shall conclusively115 prove to the reader later, if he will be so indulgent as to follow me. Here I shall say only this: If the government has ever lost a cent in rail or other haulage and handling of second-class mail matter, such loss has been wholly the result of excessive payments to railroads, Star Route and ocean carriers, to political rather than business management and to permitted raiding of the postal revenues in various ways—from overmanning the official and service force to downright thievery.
I have adverted116 on a previous page to the stealings of the Machen-Beavers gang, exposed by the investigation of Joseph L. Bristow, and a stench still exhales117 from the Star Route lootings exposed some years previous. In the Star Route case, the waste—a more fitting word is thievery—the stealing was largely effected through the medium of “joker”-loaded or unnecessary contracts, the contracts running to the advantage of some thief who “stood in” with the party in power.
Nor has all the Star Route grafting118 and stealing been stopped, though both Postmaster General Hitchcock and his recent predecessor120, Mr. George B. Cortelyou, deserve great praise for having eliminated much of it, and Mr. Hitchcock’s active, continued efforts to further clean out that Augean stable must command the hearty121 approval of every honest citizen. But, as just stated, some of the original graft119 and steal still lingers.
[102]
Last year I personally investigated one Star Route. It was a twenty-mile drive (round trip). The contractor122 was receiving $600 or more a year for the service. What he paid the villager to cover the route with his patriarchal team I do not know. The villager, however, picked up a little on the side by hauling over his drive local parcels, some merchandise and an occasional passenger. I watched his mail deliveries to the village office for ten days. On no day did the revenue to the government exceed sixty cents, and on seven of the ten days it was below twenty cents. One day it was but ten cents.
In this connection it should also be mentioned that the village which that Star Route was presumed to serve was on a regular rural route and received fully2 95% of its mail by special carrier service connecting with a trunk line station only six miles away.
But to return to my objection to the manifest efforts of the Postmaster General and of recommendations in the Penrose-Overstreet report to adopt methods or secure legislation to restrain increase in both the circulation and the copy-weight of periodicals. Of course if the government really sustains a loss on the carriage and handling of second-class matter, the loss would be greater on 160 tons than on 80 tons. I, however, contend, and shall later prove, that—barring waste, payroll123 loafing and stealage—the government now transports and handles second-class matter at a profit.
Postmaster General Hitchcock, so far as I have found time to read him, has made no particular effort to restrict or limit the piece or copy-weight of periodicals. He was, seemingly at least, so occupied in his efforts to “get” a few periodicals through the means of that unconstitutional “rider” of his that he had little or no time for anything else. But the 1906-7 commission boldly advocated a penalizing124 of periodical weight for copies mailed to piece, or individual, addresses.
A table of graduated increases is given and some very peculiar argument, to put it mildly, is presented to support the recommended scale, or system, of weight penalization125. Following I quote from pages 28-29 of the commission’s report. The italics are mine:
The rate then for copy service would be one-eighth of a cent per copy not to exceed 2 ounces, one-quarter cent per copy not to exceed 4 ounces, and one-half[103] cent for each additional 4 ounces or fraction thereof to be prepaid in money as second-class postage is now paid. Tabulated126, it would appear thus:
Not exceeding— Cents.
2 ounces ?
4 ounces ?
8 ounces ?
12 ounces 1?
16 ounces 1?
20 ounces 2?
24 ounces 2?
28 ounces 3?
Etc., etc.
The net result calculated by the pound will be, upon the periodicals above the average weight of 4 ounces and not exceeding a pound, a change from 1 to about 1? cents per pound. For heavier periodicals the rate would average 1? cents per pound for those weighing 2 pounds, and increasing by an infinitesimal fraction with the proportion of weight above 4 ounces but never reaching, no matter how heavy the periodical may grow, the limit of 2 cents per pound.
While the actual increase of rate upon the normal periodical, especially in view of the publisher’s right at all times to send it by bulk at a cent a pound, would be so small as not to upset his business, there would be two advantages to the postal revenue, one at each end of the line.
(1) The making of a definite minimum charge for the handling of the individual piece. (2) Increase of revenue as the periodical grows heavier, due to the fact that the initial rate of one-quarter cent for 4 ounces is less than the incremental127 rate.
This system of payment by the individual piece with a minimum limit of weight and an increased rate for each increment128 of weight is common to the postal systems of the entire world with the exceptions of Canada and the United States. The only difference is that in the present project the incremental rate is higher than the initial rate.
Although this graduated scale would appear to be more favorable to the smaller periodical than to the large one, it must be borne in mind that the periodical weighing less than 1 ounce and of necessity paying the initial rate of one-quarter cent would be paying a rate (2 cents per pound), slightly greater than the large periodical. This increase upon the periodical weighing less than 2 ounces finds ample justification129 in the obvious fact that the expense of handling second class matter is not to be measured simply by gross weight. On the contrary, as was pointed out by the representatives of the publishers in comparing the cost of handling second-class with that of first-class mail, such expense is to be measured by the number of pieces handled and frequency of handling. A pound of periodicals which is made up of 10 or 12 or, as is sometimes the case, 30 or 40 separate pieces, each one of which requires a separate course of handling and delivery, can not with justice be treated as the equivalent of a pound of matter which requires but two, or, at most, four courses of handling and delivery.
[104]
This increase would be offset130, moreover, for the normal periodical weighing less than 2 ounces, the country weekly, by the retention131 of the free county privilege.
The foregoing is substantially the commission’s whole argument, save a little more talk about “normal” periodicals, “normal” weeklies, and a statement to the effect that all countries, other than the United States and Canada, increase the piece, or copy, postage rate as the weight of the periodical increases—that is, these other countries do not give a flat pound, gram or other unit of weight rate.
Now, I shall briefly state my objections to some points in the above quotation—those points I have italicized.
The reader, however, must bear in mind that the scale of increase in mail rates above reprinted applies only to single copies—to copies mailed to individual addresses. For copies mailed in bulk, in packages weighing not less than ten pounds, to some agent of the publisher or other individual, to be taken up by the agent or individual at train or at central postoffice, the commission recommended the cent-a-pound rate.
In adverse criticism of the commission’s argument for penalizing weight, because all foreign countries do so, I need but say:
1. There are more high-class newspapers—papers which, necessarily, have weight—published in this country than is published in all the rest of the world.
2. There are four times as many of what the 1906-7 commission—also Postmaster General Hitchcock—would class as “periodicals” published in this country as are published in all the rest of the world.
Sounds “loud,” does it? Well, look into the matter. Maybe I am mistaken. If so, it is a mistake made after thirty years of study of the conditions controlling in my country—in your country—and of the prices paid in other countries for efficient, satisfactory service.
3. Those “other countries”—the stronger ones, at any rate—either own or absolutely control the railroads which transport their mails. In some of them, rail transportation of mails—also of government officials, the service personnel of the army and the navy, and of other government “weight”—are carried free of charge.
4. Those “other countries,” of which so much is said and written ostensibly for our enlightenment, have gone through the mill—their[105] peoples have been ground fine in mills of sophistry132 and special pleadings, to which, for fifty years, we have been carrying our grists.
5. Those “other countries” are making their mail service a source of governmental revenue.
The people of this country, today, no more expect a revenue from the government’s postal service than they expect it from the War, the Navy, the Interior, the Judicial or other service department.
The people want service, not revenues, from any federal service department.
And you gentlemen who vote away the people’s money for services not rendered—which you know will not be rendered when you vote to “burn” the money—will, before those independent periodicals are through with the recent sand-bagging attempt to censor133 or control their published thought—you will learn, I mean to say, that people want service not revenues; that they want “duty,” as an engineer would name it, not a coached prattle134 about B. T. U. or other legislative and official thermics.
Now, let us look back at that quotation—at some of the points in it I have italicized.
First paragraph quoted: Aside from small country dailies—now carried by mail to addresses inside the county of publication free—and fraternal papers, Sunday School sheets and similar publications, there are few periodicals published in this country which weigh two ounces or less.
First paragraph following tabulation135: “The rate would average 1? cents per pound” for periodicals weighing two pounds.
A glance at the table shows that the piece or copy rate on a periodical weighing 28 ounces is given as 3? cents. A periodical weighing two pounds, or 32 ounces, would be charged a half cent more, or 3? cents for mail carriage and delivery, instead of 2 cents as now.
Second paragraph following the table, also in last paragraph quoted: “Normal” periodicals.
What is a “normal” periodical? Are the 4 or 8 page weeklies published in the back counties and the small religious, college, Sunday school and fraternal sheets that weigh two ounces or less “normal” periodicals? Are the dailies of our large cities, weighing from four to twelve ounces, “normal” periodicals? Is the Saturday Evening Post, weighing from ten to twenty ounces a “normal” periodical?
[106]
Are any of the periodicals in the following descriptive list “normal?”
The newspapers and other periodicals named in the following tabulation are those I could find within convenient, likewise hurried, reach. I tried to get them as near concurrent136 dates as I could. The tabulation will show the reader the proportion of advertising137 to body matter, printed in the different periodicals on the dates named.
Readers particularly interested in the data presented in the tabulation should, however, understand that for the newspapers listed, no account was taken of the “write-up” or “promotion” advertising printed as reading matter. Some newspapers, at certain times, carry a considerable amount of such paid matter while the standard monthly and weekly periodicals carry little or none of it at any time:
NAME OF PERIODICAL. Date of Issue. No. of Pages or Columns.[2] Reading Matter, Pages or Columns.[3] Advertising Matter, Pages or Columns.[4] Gross Weight of the Periodical.
NEWSPAPERS.
Chicago.
The Examiner.
Sunday Edition 6-11-11 392 Cols. 171? Cols. 220? Cols. 15 ozs.
Daily Edition 6-8-11 126 ” 77? ” 48? ” 4? ”
Record Herald138.
Sunday Edition 6-11-11 448 ” 286? ” 161? ” 18 ”
Supplement[5] 20 pp. 14 pp. 6 pp.
Daily Edition 6-8-11 126 Cols. 77? Cols. 48? Cols. 5 ”
The Tribune.
Sunday Edition 6-11-11 490 ” 212? ” 277? ” 20 ”
Supplement 30 pp. 22? pp. 7? pp.
Daily Edition 6-8-11 168 Cols. 86? Cols. 81? Cols. 6? ”
Inter29 Ocean.
Sunday Edition 6-11-11 316 ” 242? ” 73? ” 12 ”
Daily Edition 6-8-11 84 ” 59? ” 24? ” 4 ”
The American. 6-8-11 126 ” 65 ” 61 ” 4? ”
Daily News. 6-8-11 210 ” 87 ” 123 ” 7? ”
Daily Journal. 6-8-11 112 ” 63? ” 48? ” 4? ”
[107]The Evening Post. 6-8-11 84 ” 64? ” 19? ” 3? ”
Boston.
The Globe.
Sunday Edition 6-11-11 720 ” 399 ” 321 ” 25 ”
Supplement 28 pp. 20? pp. 7? pp.
Daily Edition 6-12-11 128 Cols. 102? Cols. 25? Cols. 4 ”
New York City.
The American.
Sunday Edition 6-11-11 392 ” 221? ” 170? ” 12? ”
The Herald.
Sunday Edition 6-11-11 728 ” 373 ” 355 ” 23? ”
Daily Edition 6-12-11 114 ” 73? ” 40? ” 4 ”
Philadelphia.
The Enquirer139.
Sunday Edition 6-11-11 576 ” 339? ” 236? ” 18? ”
Daily Edition 6-12-11 128 ” 65? ” 62? ” 4 ”
Pittsburg.
The Gazette Times.
Sunday Edition 6-11-11 504 ” 358? ” 145? ” 15? ”
Supplement 20 pp. 15? pp. 4? pp.
Daily Edition 6-12-11 84 Cols. 56 Cols. 29 Cols. 3 ”
Cleveland.
The Plain Dealer140.
Sunday Edition 6-11-11 512 ” 292 ” 230 ” 16? ”
Daily Edition 6-13-11 112 ” 71 ” 41 ” 3? ”
Cincinnati.
The Enquirer.
Daily Edition 6-13-11 112 ” 66? ” 45? ” 4 ”
Louisville.
The Courier Journal.
Daily Edition 6-10-11 112 ” 91? ” 20? ” 4 ”
St. Louis.
Post Dispatch.
Sunday Edition 6-11-11 400 ” 261? ” 138? ” 12 ”
Globe Democrat141.
Daily Edition 6-13-11 112 ” 67? ” 44? ” 4 ”
Kansas City.
The Star.
Daily Edition 6-15-11 112 ” 61? ” 50? ” 4 ”
San Francisco.
The Chronicle.
[108]Daily Edition 6-10-11 126 ” 86? ” 39? ” 4? ”
Los Angeles.
The Times.
Sunday Edition 6-4-11 1170 Cols. 586? Cols. 583? Cols. 35? Ozs.
Supplement 30 pp. 24? pp. 5? pp.
MONTHLY AND WEEKLY PERIODICALS.
Everybody’s Mag. 4-1911 316 ” 146 ” 170 ” 22 ”
” ” 7-1911 284 ” 140 ” 144 ” 20 ”
Cosmopolitan142 ” 3-1911 266 ” 144? ” 120? ” 18 ”
” ” 7-1911 288 ” 146? ” 141? ” 17 ”
McClure’s ” 6-1911 244 ” 113? ” 130? ” 12 ”
American ” 6-1911 224 ” 132? ” 91? ” 15 ”
Pearson’s ” 6-1911 206 ” 143 ” 63 ” 16? ”
Sat. Evening Post 5-20-11 68 ” 32? ” 35? ” 9 ”
” ” ” 6-3-11 80 ” 33? ” 46? ” 10 ”
Ladies’ Home Jour’l 6-19-11 84 ” 52? ” 31? ” 16 ”
The Literary Digest 5-13-11 72 ” 37? ” 34? ” 8 ”
Inland Printer 3-1911 176 ” 68? ” 87? ” 24 ”
Publishers’ Weekly 3-18-11 136 ” 62? ” 73? ” 7? ”
Review of Reviews 6-1911 268 ” 129 ” 139 ” 17 ”
Scribner’s Magazine 6-1911 250 ” 134 ” 116 ” 16 ”
Harpers’ ” 6-1911 284 ” 164 ” 120 ” 21 ”
Popular ” 4-10-11 286 ” 226 ” 42 ” 14 ”
The Argosy 5-19-11 246 ” 194 ” 52 ” 12 ”
The All Story 4-19-11 228 ” 194 ” 34 ” 11 ”
The New Magazine 5-19-11 200 ” 192 ” 8 ” 10 ”
Next to last paragraph: Note the statement that “the periodical weighing less than one ounce” must “of necessity” pay the “initial rate of one-quarter cent” or “two cents per pound.”
The initial rate as given in the table is but one-eighth of a cent.[109] That would make a per copy mail rate of two cents per pound, whereas an initial rate of one-quarter cent per copy would make four-page sheets and leaflets “normal” periodicals weighing less than one ounce pay at a rate of four cents per pound.
Next, note the crossed argument in the paragraph just referred to. The commission seems to accept the argument made by the publishers—that it cost less to handle a pound of mail made up of but one to four pieces than it costs to handle a pound made up of from ten to fifty pieces. That is a fact which admits of no controversy143, is it not?
Then why did this commission advise the adoption144 of a flat rate of increase of two cents a pound (one-half cent for each four ounces), as the mail rate on periodicals weighing more than four ounces.
If the argument of the paragraph just cited is sound—and it certainly is sound—a just graduation of the mail charge for the carriage and piece handling of the heavier periodicals should scale downwards145 and not continue a flat rate, especially not continue at a flat rate on increase in weight that is greatly excessive, as two cents a pound certainly is.
I shall speak further of periodical weights later in connection with railway mail pay and car rentals146. The report of this 1906-7 commission in various other paragraphs manifests a clear intent to restrict and, if possible, to curtail147 the expansion of second-class mail matter, not only by curbing148 the enlargement of periodicals in size by increasing the second-class rate and by penalizing added weight, but by putting restrictions149 upon the periodical publisher which must necessarily make it more difficult for him to increase his circulation. These restrictions, so far as yet expressed, apply to the publisher’s sample copy privileges and to the amount of advertising a periodical may carry.
On page 48 of its report the commission, speaking of methods to curb a periodical’s growth in both circulation and weight, advises that the following be covered into the law in lieu of certain phrasings now in the statutes150 and which, the commission asserts, have proved quite inadequate151 in restraining periodicals from expanding their circulation beyond a point which they are pleased to call “normal.” They advise that the law “enforce the requirement that the periodical may be issued and circulated only in response to a public demand.”
[110]
In the draft of a bill which this 1906-7 commission recommends become a law, the following are the means by which circulation “only in response to a public demand” will be attained152:
(a) By reducing to a minimum the sample copy, which is one of the main agencies of inflation. The legitimate periodical employing this means only to a slight extent will not be at all affected153.
(b) By abolishing all premiums154, whether of printed matter or merchandise.
(c) By either prohibiting all combination offers, as, for example, a set of books with a magazine, or requiring that in all cases a price shall be set upon both elements of the combination and that the full advertised price of the periodical be paid.
(d) By requiring that the publication shall print conspicuously155, not only its regular subscription156 price, but any reduced price at which it is offered in clubbing arrangements and the like.
(e) By providing that all copies which the postmaster, in the exercise of due diligence shall be unable to deliver, shall be returned with a postage-due stamp for an amount equal to double the third-class rate. In other words, charge the publisher the third-class rate both for the forwarding and the returning of any copy sent otherwise than in response to an actual demand.
To The Man on the Ladder the commission’s talk, advising the enforcement of “the requirements that the periodical may be issued and circulated only in response to a public demand” (page 40 of report), reads much like one of two things—either the inconsidered or ill-considered prattle of persons who want to say something, or the argument of ulterior motive—of a covert157 purpose to restrict, to cripple, to kill the greatest instrument for the education of its adult citizens which any nation of earth has to date discovered—an instrument that is economically within easy reach of its exchequer158.
How much of a “public demand” does the reader think there would have been for the reaper159, for the thrashing machine, for the case-hardened, steel shared plow160, for the sewing machine, for the triple expansion engine, for the traveling crane, for any brand of breakfast food, of ham, of flour, books—in short, how much of “public demand” would there have been for any of the mechanical inventions, for any of the multitude of betterments in the housing, clothing and subsisting161 of our people, had not that “public demand” been created? No one wants anything, however excellent it may be, until his attention is called to it and he believes it will aid him or her, as the case may be, that it will lighten the stress of labor41 or increase its product, or in other lines and directions improve the conditions of[111] their lives, industrially or otherwise. Ninety-nine per cent of “public opinion,” as to whether or not that public wants or does not want this, that or the other thing is influenced—is promoted by what it senses in personal contact with the thing or by what it hears said of it or reads of it.
That statement is as true of the members of the 1906-7 commission and of Postmaster General Hitchcock as it is of Mr. William Mossback of Mossville, Connecticut. The “demand” of each of us—our desire to possess this or that—is prompted—is created—by what we see, hear, feel, taste, smell or read of it. We stand at the head of the nations of earth for progress in the various fields of mechanical improvement, from kitchen utensils162 to laundry equipment, from the plow to the electric crane. What is true of the progress of our people through the adoption of labor-saving mechanical devices, implements163 and machinery164 is correspondingly true in various other fields of progress—a progress largely the result of promoted “demand” for the better things, for the improvements of which our people have read in our newspapers and in our monthly and weekly publications—yes, read of in the advertisements and in descriptive write-ups of such periodicals, if you will have it so.
So this prattle about issuing a periodical “only to public demand” is not only prattle—it is not only unsound and unbusinesslike both in theory and service practice, but it is also a stealthy attempt to garrote the facts, likewise an attempt to subject the great publishing interests of the country to the rankest kind of injustice165.
How is the publisher to secure additional subscribers if he be denied mailing privilege to sample copies?
True, the bill recommended by this commission would allow the publisher to mail sample copies to the extent of ten per cent of his subscribed166 issue. Mr. Hitchcock, however, as I shall shortly show, proposes to exclude all sample copies from the mails.
The following is quoted from Mr. Hitchcock’s 1910 report and shows that the Postoffice Department, as at present directed, is determined167 to curb the growth and development of periodical literature in this country in every way possible—ways that scruple168 not at biased169 rulings and grossly unjust distinctions. In the following Mr. Hitchcock is after what he is pleased to designate as an “abuse of the sample-copy privilege.”
[112]
In order to discontinue the privilege of mailing sample copies at the cent-a-pound rate, legislation in substantially the following form is suggested:
That so much of the act approved March 3, 1885 (23 Stat., 387), as relates to publications of the second class be amended170 to read as follows:
“That hereafter all publications of the second-class, except as provided by Section 25 of the act of March 3, 1879 (20 Stat., 361), when sent to subscribers by the publishers thereof and from the known offices of publication, or when sent from news agents to subscribers thereto or to other news agents for the purpose of sale, shall be entitled to transmission through the mails at one cent a pound or fraction thereof, such postage to be prepaid as now provided by law.”
In drafting the above recommended legislation Mr. Hitchcock no doubt was greatly assisted by the luminous46 suggestions, advice, analyses, etc., of his Third Assistant, Mr. Britt, to be found on pages 331 and 332 of the 1910 report—which suggestions, advice, etc., is based largely on “estimates”—“estimates” which any student or careful observer of the Postoffice Department methods of figuring and accounting will readily discern are, in several particulars, somewhat “influenced,” if not, indeed, “fixed.”
Up to January 1, 1908, periodical publishers were allowed to mail sample copies of any issue in number equal to that of their subscribed lists. Acting on the recommendation of the Penrose-Overstreet Commission, no doubt approved by Mr. Hitchcock, the mailing privilege on sample copies was cut down, January 1, 1908, to 10 per cent of the subscribed issue. Now comes Mr. Hitchcock with a bit of recommended legislation, as quoted above, which would, if favorably acted upon by Congress, deny the mailing privilege to all sample copies at the cent-a-pound rate.
Though not pertinent to the subject immediately under consideration, I desire here to call the reader’s attention again to a point in Mr. Hitchcock’s recommended legislation as quoted above—a point which is conspicuously worthy of a second notice and to which I have called attention on a previous page.
Mr. Hitchcock’s report, from which the foregoing piece of recommended legislation is quoted, bears date of December 1, 1910. Keep that in mind. In that recommendation he would grant a continuance of the cent-a-pound postage rate on periodicals “sent to subscribers,” but to such only. No sample copies are to be carried and handled,[113] mind you, at the cent-a-pound rate after Mr. Hitchcock’s recommendation becomes law—that is, if it ever does become law.
Now, the subscribed mailings of any periodical—newspaper or other—are piece or single-copy mailings, which are admittedly the most expensive or costly171 to the government to transport and handle.
Yet Mr. Hitchcock recommends that the cent-a-pound rate shall continue to be extended to such single copies—a most just and sensible recommendation.
But Mr. Hitchcock when he wrote that bit of recommended legislation was thinking—and thinking only, if indeed he gave the subject any personal thought at all—of curbing the circulation growth of periodicals and, as a means to that end, recommends the exclusion172 of all sample copies from the pound-rate privilege.
Read carelessly or superficially that bit of suggested legislation in itself does not appear to have anything to do with sample copies. On second and more careful reading, however, its purpose becomes clear. If the cent-a-pound rate is to be allowed only to regularly subscribed copies of a periodical, then all sample copies must be mailed, if mailed at all, at the third-class rate—must pay eight cents a pound.
When it comes to covering or cloaking ulterior purpose or intent in legislation, Mr. Hitchcock is an expert, it would appear from the rider he so strenuously tried to put astride the 1911-12 postoffice appropriation173 bill, and from the foregoing as well as some others of his suggestions to Congress. But the point to which I more especially desire to call to the reader’s attention when I obtruded174 that last preceding quotation at a point where it interrupted a consideration of the Penrose-Overstreet Commission’s report was this:—
As previously stated, Mr. Hitchcock’s 1910 report bears date, December 1, 1910. On that date, as appears from the last quotation, he desired a law that would bar all sample copies from the mails at the present second-class rate. It also appears that Mr. Hitchcock at the date named—December, 1, 1910—desired that all periodicals issued, except sample copies, be carried, as now, at the cent-a-pound rate.
Somewhere around February 1, 1911—barely two months after he makes that cent-a-pound recommendation—we hear Mr. Hitchcock assertively175 declaring, and contentiously176 arguing, that it costs the government 9.23 cents per pound to transport and handle second-class matter.
[114]
What happened to his mental gear in so short a time to induce so loud a change in his mind?
Or was it a change of mind? On page 328 of that 1910 departmental report, Mr. Britt, Third Assistant Postmaster General, who has charge of the accounting division of the service, makes the bold statement that it cost the government $62,438,644.70 more to carry and handle the second-class mail last year than was received for the service. Being an “expert” figurer Mr. Britt found no difficulty in arriving at that absurd 9.23 cents a pound as the actual cost to the government of carrying and handling second-class mail. On pages 7 and 8 of the report, Mr. Hitchcock himself gives publicity177 to a conviction that the cent-a-pound rate should be increased on certain periodicals—the magazines—generously suggesting that the increased rate be confined to their “advertising pages” only. In the loosely worded “rider” he carelessly—or purposely—uses the word “sheets” in place of the word “pages” as used in his report.
Still, in face of his Third Assistant’s lofty figuring, the conclusions of which are announced on page 328 of the report, and of his own statement of the “reasons for an increase of rate” on periodicals of the magazine class, for carrying and handling their “advertising pages”—in face of these statements, how did his mental gear so slip, or “jam,” as to induce him to recommend, on page 35 of this same report, the enactment178 of a law continuing the cent-a-pound rate on all periodicals mailed, except sample copies?
Did he intentionally179 double cross both himself and his Third Assistant or, in his anxiety to curb the circulation growth of periodicals, did he forget what he and Mr. Britt had said?
What’s the answer?
I give it up. However it may appear to the reader, to The Man on the Ladder it appears that Mr. Hitchcock in his 1910 report has written, figured and “recommended” himself into a situation that is far more humoresque than it is consistent or informative180.
Returning to the report of the 1906-7 commission, I will mention a few more of its objectionable recommendations.
As previously stated, the Penrose-Overstreet Commission recommended the enactment of a law requiring that newspapers and other periodicals devote not more than one-half their space to advertising matter (Section 3 of recommended bill, page 50 of report). Thus,[115] in pressing an ill-conceived purpose to restrain the growth of circulation and increase of weight of monthly and weekly periodicals, they would, it appears, cut into that division of their published matter which produces the greatest revenue to the government for carriage and handling.
The truth of the last clause preceding has been so frequently and conclusively shown as to require no argument to convince the veriest tyro181 in knowledge of federal postoffice affairs and the sources of its revenues that the statement made is true. Elsewhere in this volume, however, the truth of the statement will be found fully established.
I confine the application of the statement to monthly and weekly periodicals, to such as are of general circulation. It of course applies, but in lesser182 degree, to newspapers. The advertising matter published in the newspapers is largely of local character, while that published in our high class monthly magazines and weeklies, in trade journals, etc., is largely general in character. The advertisements published by the former are chiefly those of local merchants and manufacturers and of local, commercial, financial and other interests. On the other hand the advertisements carried by the class of monthly and weekly periodicals indicated represent persons, companies and interests widely scattered183 throughout the country. Because of this phase in the character of the advertisements carried, the newspapers advertising space is not nearly so large a contributor to the government’s revenues from first, third and fourth class mail carriage and handling as is the advertising space of our high-class monthly and weekly periodicals.
It is true that this 1906-7 commission makes a somewhat strained effort to assign two chief reasons for its recommendation to curtail the space which publishers of periodicals of all kinds may devote to advertising matter.
1. The commissioners appear to have been carrying around with them a stern purpose to suppress what they designate as the “mail order” publications, devoted184 largely to advertising the wares185 carried in stock by one or, at most, a few firms that individually or jointly186 pay for publishing the “weekly” or “monthly”, as the case may be.
There can be no question that there is a large number of such alleged187 periodicals which have been issued and distributed through the mails for the plainly manifest purpose of advertising the merchandise[116] of those who pay for publishing them. I believe, however, that there are fewer of such fake periodicals enjoying the mail service at second-class rates today than there were ten or fifteen years ago. The Postoffice Department, it must be said to its credit, has “disciplined” a large number of them out of existence or, at any rate, out of the second-class mail rate privilege.
But even if there are more of such fraud and fake periodicals today than formerly188, any fair-minded man must agree that it is a very rank injustice to punish—to penalize189 by harsh restrictions and increased mailing rates—the thousands of legitimate and highly serviceable periodicals for the sins of a comparatively few alleged publications which have abused or are abusing the second-class mail rate privilege.
The department, with its large force of inspectors190 and investigators191, should be able to weed out and exclude such “fixed” periodicals. If it cannot do so it appears to The Man on the Ladder that it would not require a very large amount of industrious102, strenuous thinking on the part of six robust9, competent legislators to frame a law that would reach the guilty without punishing or crippling the innocent.
2. This commission was also, it would appear, a stickler192 over compliance193 with the postal statutes—statutes (those now largely governing) enacted194 in 1879 and 1885, therefore so antiquated in their wording in several particulars as to be a misfit when attempt is made to apply them to the vast business and varied character of periodicals today.
The statute of March 3, 1879, in its definition of what the law would recognize as a periodical says, among other things, that a periodical must be “originated and published for the dissemination of information of a public character, or devoted to literature, the arts, sciences, or to some industry.”
This portion of the statutory definition the Commission seems to have entertained a special grudge195 against. At any rate it expatiated196 at considerable length in its report, against the inadequacy197, lack of definiteness, etc., of the definition as given. The commission’s chief objection seems to center around the fact that space in periodicals should not be devoted to “commercial ends.”
On page 35 of the report the commission says:
[117]
“What was in the mind of the author (of the 1879 statute), is clear enough. He wished to prohibit the misuse198 of the privileges for commercial ends as distinguished199 from the devotion to literature, science, and the rest.”
It is possible that they knew what was in the mind of the author of that ’79 statute better than I know it, or than Jim Smith or Reuben Peachtree knows it. It is also possible that they did not know the mind of that lawbuilder any better. While the ’79 statute does not, in many particulars, meet present conditions as they should be met, in defining a publication that should be recognized as a periodical, it requires a supercritical or finicky mind to find much fault with it.
A periodical must be “originated and published for the dissemination of information of a public character, devoted to literature, the arts, sciences or some special industry.”
Now, when one considers the broad application of the word “literature,” the word “arts,” comprehending as it does not only the mechanical and liberal or polite arts, but also business, commercial, mercantile and others, including the science of business management, and the term “special industry” and the broad field covered by it—when one considers the broad application of those words, it is a fairly legitimate inference that it was “in the mind” of the writer when drafting that ’79 statute to give a broad meaning and range of service to the publications he intended should be classed as periodicals.
In this connection it is pertinent to ask why periodical publications should not serve, either in their advertising pages or in their “body pages,” devoted to fiction and articles on political conditions, economics, history, the lives and deeds of men, forests and forestry200, mills, mines, factory, farm and a vast array of other features, phases and conditions—why, I ask, should our periodicals not give aid by giving space to the great mercantile, manufacturing, financial, agricultural and other interests in this country—interests which, collectively, have built up a commerce more vast today than that of any other nation of earth?
Why should not this vast commerce of ours—a commerce in which every man, woman and child of our people is directly or indirectly interested—be aided and served in every legitimate way by our periodicals? Will some politically living member of that Penrose-Overstreet Commission rise and answer? Answer, not in hypercritical nothings, but straightly and bluntly?
[118]
Another immediately pertinent thing should be stated and another asked here. Among the instruments which have contributed to build up the great commerce of the nation, the American periodical must be recognized—is recognized—as one of the most efficient.
Why, then, this recent attempt to cripple, to curb, to lessen201, its influence and effort? And why, again, try to curtail its circulation and usefulness by prattle about a postal “deficit202” as reason for restrictive departmental rulings and laws when, should such restrictive measures be made effective, a shrinkage of postal revenues and a consequent increase of deficit would, necessarily, result?
Will some one whose thought-dome and pockets are not full of ulterior motives203 and postal service “deficits” please rise and answer?
Returning to the 1906-7 commission’s agony over the definition in the act of 1879 of what should be considered a periodical and, therefore, entitled to mail entry as second-class matter, it appears that the commissioners, in an apparent anxious anxiety to prove their charge against the author of the act for careless, ambiguous wording, quote a lawyer’s opinion, or part of such opinion, in support of the carefully framed-up “arguments” which it presents in didactic order, both before and after the quotation.
The quotation, it should be noted204, is from the brief of the Postmaster General’s counsel in Houghton vs. Payne, 194 U. S. 88, or so the commission’s report designates it.
The point of the commission’s argument appears to be: (1) that owing to its loose, indefinite wording, the act of ’79 was of easy evasion205 when it came to passing upon the kind and character of matter which might be published in periodical form and mailed at second-class rates, and (2) that, by reason of such loose and indefinite wording, periodical publishers have evaded206 the intent and purpose of the act—have abused their second-class rate privileges—have violated the law.
That, at any rate, I read as the point and purpose of the commission’s somewhat labored207, if not strained, argument. They quote (pages 37-38) this counsel in support of that argument. I shall here reprint that quotation as evidence that the publisher of “the universally recognized, commonly accepted, and perfectly well understood periodical of everyday speech” (see fifth paragraph of quotation) have not violated the law nor sought to do so.
The quoted opinion presents some italicized words, phrases and[119] clauses as it appears in the report. I have taken the liberty to further italicize in reprinting it:
“The next words only strengthen the same idea—originated and published for the dissemination of information of a public character. Not, it will be observed, that it shall contain information of a public character, but shall be published for the dissemination of such public information. Each of these words is significant, and each gathers significance from its neighbors. Dissemination is here a word of strong color and tinges208 all the rest. It indicates a dynamic process, an agency at work carrying out a purpose for which it was originated and set in motion. But strong as the word dissemination is, it is fortified209 by the use of the word information. An agency for the dissemination of knowledge for example, might better consist with the idea of a library of books. But the word is not knowledge, but information. The distinction is obvious. One has the sense of accumulated stores; the other of imparting the idea of things for current needs. One is, as it were, human experience at rest; the other, human experience in action. One may be as stale as you please; the other must be new, fresh, vital. A book, a volume, is the medium of one; a journal the medium of the other.
“Information,” says the Century Dictionary, “is timely or specific knowledge respecting some matter of interest or inquiry.” It is, as it were, vitalized knowledge; knowledge imbued210 with life and activity. Nor when we come to the next phase do we find any change in the idea—or devoted to literature, the sciences, arts, or some special industry. Devoted to literature. Mark you, not that the publication shall be literature or contain literature, but that it shall be devoted to literature. What is meant by devoted? The Century Dictionary puts it thus: To direct or apply chiefly or wholly to some purpose, work, or use; to give or surrender completely, as to some person or end, as to devote oneself to art, literature, or philanthropy. There again we have the idea of a permanent continuing entity211, a thing existing for a given purpose, appearing regularly at such intervals (not greater than three months), as may most effectually meet its needs, in the interest of art, of science, or literature.
Do we say that a book—a novel, a history, a drama—is devoted to literature? It is not devoted to literature; it is literature, and it would be an absurdity212 to speak of it as devoted to itself. Such a locution would be merely a willful perversion213 of language.
On the other hand, a review or a magazine may be said to be devoted to literature with perfect naturalness and propriety. For we rightly conceive of the review or magazine as one definite recognizable entity—a continuing whole, originated for a given purpose, and made up of similar parts having a common object—literature, for example, or art, or science, or whatever else it is to which the whole is devoted.
Taking these words, originated and published for, dissemination, information, devoted to, they all point to one conclusion. They are, we repeat, strong and pregnant words. There is but one concept consistent with them all. We confidently submit that an attentive214 reading of the statute will leave no doubt that what Congress constantly had in mind in the creating of this privileged class[120] of publications was the universally recognized, commonly accepted, and perfectly well understood periodical of everyday speech.
In establishing the rate for newspapers and other periodical publications Congress was not seeking to discriminate215 between good literature and bad literature or to establish a censorship of the press with prizes for merit. The thing it had in mind was not the goodness or badness of the information disseminated216, but the instrumentalities by which that dissemination might be accomplished217. It was not thinking of all the accumulated stores of sound and pure literature in the vast libraries of the world, but it was thinking of how the mind of an inquiring and progressive people might be kept abreast218 of the times in all departments of human thought and activity. Congress did not stand hesitating between a good book and a bad newspaper.
Another position taken by the Penrose-Overstreet Commission, and one which The Man on the Ladder strongly opposes, is that a periodical may not or “must not consist wholly or substantially of fiction.”
The words just quoted are exactly the words used in the sixth paragraph of Section 2 of the bill the enactment of which this commission recommended.
Now, whatever their wit or wisdom, their eloquence219 or adroitness220 of speech, their beauty of shape and apparel, or their loftiness of position, that “recommendation” should recommend the personnel of that commission, it seems to me, to some “wronghouse” for a long rest. Their conclusion, their lex recommendation and their “argument” in support, taken collectively, are as thrilling, likewise amusing, as the point in a story “where the woman is turned on and begins to short circuit the hero,” putting it as near as I can remember in the language of Sewell Ford221, Bowers222, or some other “enlivening writer.”
Lest the reader think my adverse criticism of the commissioners too harsh, or not in keeping with the dignity of the gentlemen composing that 1906-7 commission, I shall here quote a few of the paragraphs it presents as basis for its recommendation. The reader will oblige by carefully noting the italics. They are mine, and, following the quotation, I shall comment on some of those italicized phrasings and statements:
“Not only does the element of fiction constitute the (1) propulsive223 force behind the expansion of second-class matter, but it serves at the same time (2) to undermine the main statutory check upon the commercial exploitation of the second class. Being free to make up a periodical which contains nothing but fiction, publishers find ready at hand the very thing with which to interlard and disguise the advertising matter, for the sake of which the publication is really issued. This they[121] could not do if the advertisement carrying text was required to be news matter or critical matter of a current nature. (3) Deprive the mail-order journals of the right to cloak their advertising with fiction and require them to publish something in the nature of a newspaper or review with expensive news-gathering apparatus224 and an editorial staff and (4) the mail-order advertising journal will completely disappear. It lives only by reason of two things, the cheapness of its fiction, with which it cloaks its advertising, and the cheapness of the postal rate which that fiction cloak enables it to obtain.
“The distinction between the fiction-carrying periodical and the nonfiction-carrying periodical (5) is precisely225 the distinction between a periodical fulfilling the purposes of the act and the publication which, although periodical in its form, has no true periodicity in its essence.
“Another consequence of the expansive power of fiction is found in the confusion of the newspaper and magazine types and the unhealthy exaggeration of the modern newspaper, as shown especially in its Sunday editions.
“The newspaper is rapidly being extended into the magazine field at the sacrifice both of the postal revenue and the (6) true mission of the newspaper. The miscellaneous matter contained in the Sunday issue of a newspaper must of necessity lack the quality to make it socially and educationally valuable.” (Page 37.)
“No fiction necessarily involves the element of periodicity or time publication which is involved in the very idea of a newspaper or periodical. It follows, then, (7) that the real purpose of the act of March 3, 1879, namely, the diffusion226 in the quickest possible way at the smallest possible cost of timely information among the people, is perverted227 when the right to that quick and inexpensive diffusion is extended to the form of fiction. But the periodical form devoted to fiction, or in which fiction constitutes the predominant feature, is the very form of periodical which serves to swell228 the second class. The popular demand for fiction seems to be practically unlimited229. The temptation offered by the low postal rate to supply that demand through the periodical form is a temptation impossible to resist.” (Page 39.)
I shall make my comment on the foregoing in the order that its italicized assertions are numbered.
(1) The “element of fiction” has not and does not constitute “the propulsive force” stated. Was it “fiction” that propulsed the circulation of Everybody’s? of Pearson’s? of The Cosmopolitan? of The American? of McClure’s? of The Saturday Evening Post? of The Inland Printer? of The Progressive Printer? or of scores of other monthly and weekly periodicals whose publishers are independent enough to do their own thinking and courageous enough to publish what they and their representatives found to be the truth?
Was “Frenzied Finance” fiction?
Was Anna M. Tarbell’s exposures of Standard Oil fiction?
Was the exposure of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company’s connection[122] with the great Senatorial “I” of Texas fiction? Was the shake-up of the “Big Three” life insurance companies fiction? Were the hundreds of other trenchant230 write-ups and exposures of wrong practices, of impositions, of crookedness231 and crooks232 in official, corporation and private life, “fiction?”
The man who reads and will attempt to answer any of those questions affirmatively needs to have his brain dusted up—that is, of course, on the presumption233 that he is not paid for vocal234 gyrations.
And yet it was the telling write-ups and exposures of these independents which greatly increased their circulation and, consequently, increased second-class tonnage.
(2) There is no such “main statutory check.” Moreover, the “commercial exploitation” given in the advertising pages of our standard periodicals to merchants, manufacturers, etc., is, as previously shown, not only just and due to the vast commercial interests of the country, but it is safely within both the letter and the intent of the statute.
(3) As previously intimated, a sextet of experienced legislators who could not frame up a law that would put the “mail-order journals” and other abusers and abuses of the second-class mail-rate privilege out of business without ruinously restricting and obstructing235 the vast legitimate periodical interests of the country, that sextet ought to do one of two things, either send their thought equipment to a vacuum cleaner to get the dust blown off and then try again, or they should turn the task over to some other legislators. There most certainly are scores of legislators in the Senate and the House fully equipped to prepare such a piece of legislation.
(4) In comment under (3) I noted this “mail order advertising journal.” I did so to indicate that the Penrose-Overstreet Commission, as it appears to me, worked the “mail order” print stuff overtime236 for the purpose of reaching certain legitimate publications.
(5) There is no such distinction between “a fiction-carrying periodical and the non-fiction carrying periodical” as that named. Fiction in a periodical is just as permissible237 under the act as is the series of war stories, or reminiscences, now (May, 1911), running in one of the magazines; as in the series of articles on the civil war now running in one of the Chicago newspapers, or as would be a series of articles on “the Panama Canal,” on the “Development of the Reaping Machine,”[123] on “Treason in Our Senate,” on “The Depletion238 of American Forests,” on “The Railroads’ Side of the Railway Mail Pay,” or on any other subject of the historical past or active present.
In fact, most of the current fiction, whether in serial239 or short-story, published in the standard monthly, weekly and other periodicals of large general circulation presents far more of truth than do the stories, reminiscences and “historical narratives240 about the civil war,” written forty-five years after the events, and, if based on personal experience, written from fading memory of the facts.
(6) While one may agree with the thought expressed by the commission at (6), its wording expresses a desire or tendency to censor the periodical press of the people by legislative restrictions and departmental rulings which not only contravene241 the Federal Constitution, but which are inimical to the personal rights and liberties guaranteed by that constitution.
Force is added to this objection to the commission’s recommendation by the fact that it specifically delegates to the Postmaster General the power and authority to decide the kind and character of printed matter which shall have the right of entry at second-class rates, and which complies with the requirements the commission would have written into the law.
Section 2 of the at present governing statute, the commission advised (see recommended bill, page 49 of report), should, in its opening paragraph, read as follows:—
“No newspaper or other periodical shall be admitted to the second class unless it shall be made to appear by evidence, satisfactory to the Postmaster General or his lawful242 deputy in that behalf, that it complies with the following conditions.”
Then follow the “conditions,” several of which I have already shown to be seriously objectionable.
(7) I have already presented, under (5), some objections to the commission’s argument made in this seventh citation243. I will, however, again say that the publication of fiction, other than immoral244, in periodicals, does not, in my judgment245 at least, in any way infringe246 the “purpose of the act” of 1879. I will here go further, and say that the act of ’79 does not comprehend in its “real purpose,” as the commission tries to make it appear at (7), that “the diffusion in the quickest possible way at the smallest possible cost of timely information[124] among the people”—that is, the act does not so purpose if the word “timely,” as here used, is intended to mean “news” or “currence of matter,” etc., as the commission elsewhere in its report argues for. In fact, the commission’s statement at (7) is further alee of the “real purpose” of the act of 1879 than is the publication of any fiction in a periodical, and that too, whether the fiction be a reprint of some old production or the imaginative visualizations of some current writer who moved from periodical publication in 1908 or 1909 to print as a “best-seller” in 1910, or from a best seller in 1908-9 to periodical form in 1911.
In short, the commission’s position regarding the publication of fiction in periodical form contravenes247 the “real purpose” of the law. So, also, does its position on several points it seeks to bolster248 in its report contravene the real purpose of that act, as I have previously shown, quoting in one instance the opinion of a Postmaster General’s counsel, which opinion the commission itself quoted to support a false position.
I feel constrained249 to make another point against the stand this commission took against the admissibility to the second class mail rate privilege of periodicals largely devoted to fiction.
It appears to me that these commissioners must have confined their reading in recent years largely to the older and so-called “classic” fiction, to professional tomes, to juridic opinions, attorney’s briefs, and to “booster” stuff for parties and candidates published in our newspapers. Certainly they could not have read much of the periodical fiction published by our high-class monthlies and weeklies. If they had done so, they would not, it seems to me, have written so loosely and unwarrantedly of the “fiction” in their report.
Had they read much of the fiction appearing in the leading periodicals during current and recent years, they would have learned at least two facts about it:
1. Much—yes, most—of the fiction printed during recent years in our standard periodicals (even in those printing only fiction as “body matter”), has been highly didactic or educational in character.
2. The periodical fiction published in our leading magazines and weeklies has taught our people lessons in morals, in politics, in political economy, in social, domestic and industrial life. It has told its readers of the habits and habitat of animals, of birds and bees; of flowers,[125] of fruits and forestry. Nor has there been much of “nature faking” in it. Some of the most informative matter ever printed bearing upon natural history, the geography, topography and hydrography of this earth, has reached us through the periodical fiction of the past ten or twelve years. Not only that, but such fiction has gone to the farm and into the laboratory, into the mine, the factory, the mill, and the lumber250 camp; into the mercantile establishment, into transportation, both rail and water; into the counting room, into the “sweat-shop” and into the tenement251 districts, the purlieus and the “submerged tenths” in both the lower and higher “walks” of the world’s various and varying civilizations, and it has taught us things we did not before know.
Then why should new laws be enacted, or old laws be twisted, turned or misconstrued, to exclude “fiction”—periodical fiction—from the second-class mail rate privilege?
One other objection I find to this 1906-7 commission’s report. It recommends the appointment of a “Commission of Postal Appeals.”
The report states that certain publishers favored such a commission. That be as it may, I do not believe that such a commission will return service value at all commensurate with the amount of public money it would cost to keep its wheels “greased” and operating. Next to a bureaucracy, government by commissions is the worst. Can the reader think of a “Commission”—a Government, a State, County or City Commission—that ever discharged, promptly252 and satisfactorily, the duties assigned to it? One is put to no trouble to think of scores of Civil Service Commissions, Forestry Commissions, Subway Commissions, Canal Commissions, Traction253 Commissions, Railroad Commissions, Postal Commissions, Inter-State Commerce Commissions and a host of others.
But do you know of one of them that ever did any real serviceable work for the people—did it until an aroused and hostile public opinion kicked it into doing the work?
You may know of one. The Man on the Ladder knows of none, and he has been watching the service value of the “commission” for thirty-five years. As a governing instrument it has largely been a subversive254 instrument. It always spends its appropriation. It always puts as many of its uncles, brothers and nephews on the pay roll and takes as many junkets as is possible under its appropriation[126] and, if the appropriation is exceeded, it usually asks for more and—gets it.
We have an Interstate Commerce Commission. It has been on the job ever since John Sherman put it on duty. Sherman knew what he intended—wanted—it to do. Did it do what he and the rest of us depended on it to do? Well, not to any noticeable extent. It spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of our money while it permitted the railroads and express companies to rebate255, “differential” and “short” and “long” haul us out of hundreds of millions of easy or stolen dollars.
O yes! of course the Interstate Commerce Commission is, of late, getting down to business—getting down to the work John Sherman intended it to do when he drafted the bill which created it.
Why has that commission finally arrived at its starting point? Why is it now trying to do—and trying, even yet, to do it in a loose, dilatory256 way—what Sherman intended it to do?
“Why?” Why, simply because the people have finally learned—thanks largely to the enlightenment given them by the independent periodicals of the country—that they have been governmentally treated as fools—that they have been treated as sheep to furnish fleece and mutton for a few who feast and wear fine raiment, yet earn it not.
O yes, the people have learned some things and they, recently, have been learning rapidly. It is the people who have learned who have virtually kicked the Interstate Commerce Commission into dutiful action.
No, I positively257 do not like government by commission, and especially do I not like government of our postal service, or any phase, feature or division of it, by a “Commission of Postal Appeals” or by any other commission, however dignified258 its title may be. Any suggestion or recommendation of such a commission is, to The Man on the Ladder, but a suggestion and recommendation to further load an already overloaded259 service.
By that, I mean that the service now rendered by the Federal Postoffice Department is not nearly commensurate with the number of employes carried on its payrolls260 or with its expenditures261, and that the creation of a commission—any postal commission—will only add[127] names to the department payrolls and thousands of dollars to its already excessive expenditures.
In closing my consideration of this Penrose-Overstreet Commission’s report—a report which Mr. Hitchcock appears to have taken some “hunches” from while it also appears he gave very little or no study or consideration to the vast amount of informative data it collected and filed—I desire to make a statement or two and then ask a pertinently impertinent question or two.
Among the vast amount of informative data on the subject of transporting and handling second-class mail matter, its cost to the government, etc., there are pages upon pages of testimony by publishers the commission invited to appear before it in person or by representative. Some of that testimony, so newspapers reported during the hearings in both New York and Washington, is supported or re-enforced by the jurats of the publishers testifying. Some of those publishers stated in their testimony that the sample copies they had distributed had, by reason of the correspondence and mail business resulting, amply compensated262 the government for carrying and handling such sample copies. Several specific and detailed263 statements were made by the publishers.
Again: The publishers furnished voluminous testimony—both in their own statements and in the correspondence of business men who had patronized the columns of their publications—in proof of the fact that (1) the advertising pages of their publications were as generally read, if not more read, than were the body pages, and (2) that the sales of stamps by the government for the correspondence and business resulting from the advertisements printed yielded far more postal revenue than did any other character of second-class matter the mail service handled.
Now, the questions.
When this Penrose-Overstreet Commission sent out its invitations most of them went to publishers and associations of publishers. At any rate so it would appear from statements in the commission’s report.
Did the commission believe the publishers invited were liars?
If so, why did it invite them?
After hearing their verbal testimony and looking over their[128] written statements, did the commission conclude that those publishers were liars?
If so, why did it spend the people’s money to collate, digest and file the testimony of liars for the information of Mr. Cortelyou, the then Postmaster General, Mr. Meyer and Mr. Hitchcock, his successor, and other Postmaster Generals who will follow Mr. Hitchcock?
Again—If those commissioners of 1906-7 concluded, either before or after hearing them, that the publishers were or are liars, why may not, or should not, those publishers conclude (after reading their report) that the commissioners are liars?
FOOTNOTES
[2] Covers are included in the total for pages given.
[3] One cover page included in count for periodicals carrying cover with no advertising matter on title page of same.
[4] Three pages of cover are counted as advertising.
[5] The weight of supplements to Sunday Editions of newspapers (when mentioned as supplements in list), is included in the gross weight of the issue as given.
点击收听单词发音
1 peculiar | |
adj.古怪的,异常的;特殊的,特有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 fully | |
adv.完全地,全部地,彻底地;充分地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 hulling | |
造船身的材料 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 kindly | |
adj.和蔼的,温和的,爽快的;adv.温和地,亲切地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 legitimate | |
adj.合法的,合理的,合乎逻辑的;v.使合法 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 dodge | |
v.闪开,躲开,避开;n.妙计,诡计 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 candidly | |
adv.坦率地,直率而诚恳地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 robustness | |
坚固性,健壮性;鲁棒性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 robust | |
adj.强壮的,强健的,粗野的,需要体力的,浓的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 accounting | |
n.会计,会计学,借贷对照表 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 previously | |
adv.以前,先前(地) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 maelstrom | |
n.大乱动;大漩涡 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 plunge | |
v.跳入,(使)投入,(使)陷入;猛冲 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 perfectly | |
adv.完美地,无可非议地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 joint | |
adj.联合的,共同的;n.关节,接合处;v.连接,贴合 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 pertinent | |
adj.恰当的;贴切的;中肯的;有关的;相干的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 pertinently | |
适切地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 opposition | |
n.反对,敌对 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 proceedings | |
n.进程,过程,议程;诉讼(程序);公报 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 acting | |
n.演戏,行为,假装;adj.代理的,临时的,演出用的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 gore | |
n.凝血,血污;v.(动物)用角撞伤,用牙刺破;缝以补裆;顶 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 postal | |
adj.邮政的,邮局的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 authorized | |
a.委任的,许可的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 inquiry | |
n.打听,询问,调查,查问 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 collated | |
v.校对( collate的过去式和过去分词 );整理;核对;整理(文件或书等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 collate | |
vt.(仔细)核对,对照;(书籍装订前)整理 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 egregious | |
adj.非常的,过分的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 intervals | |
n.[军事]间隔( interval的名词复数 );间隔时间;[数学]区间;(戏剧、电影或音乐会的)幕间休息 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 inter | |
v.埋葬 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 prudently | |
adv. 谨慎地,慎重地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 curb | |
n.场外证券市场,场外交易;vt.制止,抑制 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 curbed | |
v.限制,克制,抑制( curb的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 concur | |
v.同意,意见一致,互助,同时发生 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 commissioners | |
n.专员( commissioner的名词复数 );长官;委员;政府部门的长官 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 delved | |
v.深入探究,钻研( delve的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 thoroughly | |
adv.完全地,彻底地,十足地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37 antiquated | |
adj.陈旧的,过时的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
38 inaccurate | |
adj.错误的,不正确的,不准确的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
39 indirectly | |
adv.间接地,不直接了当地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
40 grievances | |
n.委屈( grievance的名词复数 );苦衷;不满;牢骚 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
41 labor | |
n.劳动,努力,工作,劳工;分娩;vi.劳动,努力,苦干;vt.详细分析;麻烦 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
42 statute | |
n.成文法,法令,法规;章程,规则,条例 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
43 briefly | |
adv.简单地,简短地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
44 investigation | |
n.调查,调查研究 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
45 insufficient | |
adj.(for,of)不足的,不够的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
46 luminous | |
adj.发光的,发亮的;光明的;明白易懂的;有启发的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
47 investigations | |
(正式的)调查( investigation的名词复数 ); 侦查; 科学研究; 学术研究 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
48 strenuous | |
adj.奋发的,使劲的;紧张的;热烈的,狂热的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
49 strenuously | |
adv.奋发地,费力地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
50 quotation | |
n.引文,引语,语录;报价,牌价,行情 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
51 economize | |
v.节约,节省 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
52 testimony | |
n.证词;见证,证明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
53 embodied | |
v.表现( embody的过去式和过去分词 );象征;包括;包含 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
54 amplify | |
vt.放大,增强;详述,详加解说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
55 worthy | |
adj.(of)值得的,配得上的;有价值的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
56 specialized | |
adj.专门的,专业化的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
57 accrue | |
v.(利息等)增大,增多 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
58 postgraduate | |
adj.大学毕业后的,大学研究院的;n.研究生 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
59 possessed | |
adj.疯狂的;拥有的,占有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
60 lapsed | |
adj.流失的,堕落的v.退步( lapse的过去式和过去分词 );陷入;倒退;丧失 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
61 shuffle | |
n.拖著脚走,洗纸牌;v.拖曳,慢吞吞地走 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
62 gauge | |
v.精确计量;估计;n.标准度量;计量器 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
63 nonchalance | |
n.冷淡,漠不关心 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
64 quotations | |
n.引用( quotation的名词复数 );[商业]行情(报告);(货物或股票的)市价;时价 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
65 strictly | |
adv.严厉地,严格地;严密地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
66 deducting | |
v.扣除,减去( deduct的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
67 applied | |
adj.应用的;v.应用,适用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
68 entailed | |
使…成为必要( entail的过去式和过去分词 ); 需要; 限定继承; 使必需 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
69 drawn | |
v.拖,拉,拔出;adj.憔悴的,紧张的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
70 contention | |
n.争论,争辩,论战;论点,主张 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
71 fixed | |
adj.固定的,不变的,准备好的;(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
72 metropolitan | |
adj.大城市的,大都会的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
73 radius | |
n.半径,半径范围;有效航程,范围,界限 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
74 subscriber | |
n.用户,订户;(慈善机关等的)定期捐款者;预约者;签署者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
75 pointed | |
adj.尖的,直截了当的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
76 illustrate | |
v.举例说明,阐明;图解,加插图 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
77 computing | |
n.计算 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
78 secondly | |
adv.第二,其次 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
79 stimulated | |
a.刺激的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
80 inevitably | |
adv.不可避免地;必然发生地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
81 elimination | |
n.排除,消除,消灭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
82 epitome | |
n.典型,梗概 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
83 entirely | |
ad.全部地,完整地;完全地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
84 justified | |
a.正当的,有理的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
85 dissemination | |
传播,宣传,传染(病毒) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
86 subsidy | |
n.补助金,津贴 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
87 deterioration | |
n.退化;恶化;变坏 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
88 dealing | |
n.经商方法,待人态度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
89 concurred | |
同意(concur的过去式与过去分词形式) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
90 adverse | |
adj.不利的;有害的;敌对的,不友好的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
91 commendable | |
adj.值得称赞的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
92 auditors | |
n.审计员,稽核员( auditor的名词复数 );(大学课程的)旁听生 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
93 adversely | |
ad.有害地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
94 retirement | |
n.退休,退职 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
95 varied | |
adj.多样的,多变化的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
96 variegated | |
adj.斑驳的,杂色的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
97 sufficiently | |
adv.足够地,充分地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
98 justify | |
vt.证明…正当(或有理),为…辩护 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
99 constituents | |
n.选民( constituent的名词复数 );成分;构成部分;要素 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
100 legislative | |
n.立法机构,立法权;adj.立法的,有立法权的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
101 judicial | |
adj.司法的,法庭的,审判的,明断的,公正的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
102 industrious | |
adj.勤劳的,刻苦的,奋发的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
103 industriously | |
参考例句: |
|
|
104 conceal | |
v.隐藏,隐瞒,隐蔽 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
105 courageous | |
adj.勇敢的,有胆量的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
106 patriots | |
爱国者,爱国主义者( patriot的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
107 scrutiny | |
n.详细检查,仔细观察 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
108 discreet | |
adj.(言行)谨慎的;慎重的;有判断力的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
109 liars | |
说谎者( liar的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
110 ramble | |
v.漫步,漫谈,漫游;n.漫步,闲谈,蔓延 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
111 propriety | |
n.正当行为;正当;适当 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
112 subdued | |
adj. 屈服的,柔和的,减弱的 动词subdue的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
113 standing | |
n.持续,地位;adj.永久的,不动的,直立的,不流动的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
114 afflicted | |
使受痛苦,折磨( afflict的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
115 conclusively | |
adv.令人信服地,确凿地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
116 adverted | |
引起注意(advert的过去式与过去分词形式) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
117 exhales | |
v.呼出,发散出( exhale的第三人称单数 );吐出(肺中的空气、烟等),呼气 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
118 grafting | |
嫁接法,移植法 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
119 graft | |
n.移植,嫁接,艰苦工作,贪污;v.移植,嫁接 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
120 predecessor | |
n.前辈,前任 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
121 hearty | |
adj.热情友好的;衷心的;尽情的,纵情的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
122 contractor | |
n.订约人,承包人,收缩肌 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
123 payroll | |
n.工资表,在职人员名单,工薪总额 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
124 penalizing | |
对…予以惩罚( penalize的现在分词 ); 使处于不利地位 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
125 penalization | |
压抑疗法 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
126 tabulated | |
把(数字、事实)列成表( tabulate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
127 incremental | |
adj.增加的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
128 increment | |
n.增值,增价;提薪,增加工资 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
129 justification | |
n.正当的理由;辩解的理由 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
130 offset | |
n.分支,补偿;v.抵消,补偿 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
131 retention | |
n.保留,保持,保持力,记忆力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
132 sophistry | |
n.诡辩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
133 censor | |
n./vt.审查,审查员;删改 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
134 prattle | |
n.闲谈;v.(小孩般)天真无邪地说话;发出连续而无意义的声音 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
135 tabulation | |
作表,表格; 表列结果; 列表; 造表 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
136 concurrent | |
adj.同时发生的,一致的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
137 advertising | |
n.广告业;广告活动 a.广告的;广告业务的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
138 herald | |
vt.预示...的来临,预告,宣布,欢迎 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
139 enquirer | |
寻问者,追究者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
140 dealer | |
n.商人,贩子 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
141 democrat | |
n.民主主义者,民主人士;民主党党员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
142 cosmopolitan | |
adj.世界性的,全世界的,四海为家的,全球的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
143 controversy | |
n.争论,辩论,争吵 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
144 adoption | |
n.采用,采纳,通过;收养 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
145 downwards | |
adj./adv.向下的(地),下行的(地) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
146 rentals | |
n.租费,租金额( rental的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
147 curtail | |
vt.截短,缩短;削减 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
148 curbing | |
n.边石,边石的材料v.限制,克制,抑制( curb的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
149 restrictions | |
约束( restriction的名词复数 ); 管制; 制约因素; 带限制性的条件(或规则) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
150 statutes | |
成文法( statute的名词复数 ); 法令; 法规; 章程 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
151 inadequate | |
adj.(for,to)不充足的,不适当的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
152 attained | |
(通常经过努力)实现( attain的过去式和过去分词 ); 达到; 获得; 达到(某年龄、水平、状况) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
153 affected | |
adj.不自然的,假装的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
154 premiums | |
n.费用( premium的名词复数 );保险费;额外费用;(商品定价、贷款利息等以外的)加价 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
155 conspicuously | |
ad.明显地,惹人注目地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
156 subscription | |
n.预订,预订费,亲笔签名,调配法,下标(处方) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
157 covert | |
adj.隐藏的;暗地里的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
158 exchequer | |
n.财政部;国库 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
159 reaper | |
n.收割者,收割机 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
160 plow | |
n.犁,耕地,犁过的地;v.犁,费力地前进[英]plough | |
参考例句: |
|
|
161 subsisting | |
v.(靠很少的钱或食物)维持生活,生存下去( subsist的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
162 utensils | |
器具,用具,器皿( utensil的名词复数 ); 器物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
163 implements | |
n.工具( implement的名词复数 );家具;手段;[法律]履行(契约等)v.实现( implement的第三人称单数 );执行;贯彻;使生效 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
164 machinery | |
n.(总称)机械,机器;机构 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
165 injustice | |
n.非正义,不公正,不公平,侵犯(别人的)权利 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
166 subscribed | |
v.捐助( subscribe的过去式和过去分词 );签署,题词;订阅;同意 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
167 determined | |
adj.坚定的;有决心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
168 scruple | |
n./v.顾忌,迟疑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
169 biased | |
a.有偏见的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
170 Amended | |
adj. 修正的 动词amend的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
171 costly | |
adj.昂贵的,价值高的,豪华的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
172 exclusion | |
n.拒绝,排除,排斥,远足,远途旅行 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
173 appropriation | |
n.拨款,批准支出 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
174 obtruded | |
v.强行向前,强行,强迫( obtrude的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
175 assertively | |
断言地,独断地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
176 contentiously | |
参考例句: |
|
|
177 publicity | |
n.众所周知,闻名;宣传,广告 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
178 enactment | |
n.演出,担任…角色;制订,通过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
179 intentionally | |
ad.故意地,有意地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
180 informative | |
adj.提供资料的,增进知识的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
181 tyro | |
n.初学者;生手 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
182 lesser | |
adj.次要的,较小的;adv.较小地,较少地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
183 scattered | |
adj.分散的,稀疏的;散步的;疏疏落落的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
184 devoted | |
adj.忠诚的,忠实的,热心的,献身于...的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
185 wares | |
n. 货物, 商品 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
186 jointly | |
ad.联合地,共同地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
187 alleged | |
a.被指控的,嫌疑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
188 formerly | |
adv.从前,以前 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
189 penalize | |
vt.对…处以刑罚,宣告…有罪;处罚 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
190 inspectors | |
n.检查员( inspector的名词复数 );(英国公共汽车或火车上的)查票员;(警察)巡官;检阅官 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
191 investigators | |
n.调查者,审查者( investigator的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
192 stickler | |
n.坚持细节之人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
193 compliance | |
n.顺从;服从;附和;屈从 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
194 enacted | |
制定(法律),通过(法案)( enact的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
195 grudge | |
n.不满,怨恨,妒嫉;vt.勉强给,不情愿做 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
196 expatiated | |
v.详述,细说( expatiate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
197 inadequacy | |
n.无法胜任,信心不足 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
198 misuse | |
n.误用,滥用;vt.误用,滥用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
199 distinguished | |
adj.卓越的,杰出的,著名的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
200 forestry | |
n.森林学;林业 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
201 lessen | |
vt.减少,减轻;缩小 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
202 deficit | |
n.亏空,亏损;赤字,逆差 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
203 motives | |
n.动机,目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
204 noted | |
adj.著名的,知名的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
205 evasion | |
n.逃避,偷漏(税) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
206 evaded | |
逃避( evade的过去式和过去分词 ); 避开; 回避; 想不出 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
207 labored | |
adj.吃力的,谨慎的v.努力争取(for)( labor的过去式和过去分词 );苦干;详细分析;(指引擎)缓慢而困难地运转 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
208 tinges | |
n.细微的色彩,一丝痕迹( tinge的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
209 fortified | |
adj. 加强的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
210 imbued | |
v.使(某人/某事)充满或激起(感情等)( imbue的过去式和过去分词 );使充满;灌输;激发(强烈感情或品质等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
211 entity | |
n.实体,独立存在体,实际存在物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
212 absurdity | |
n.荒谬,愚蠢;谬论 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
213 perversion | |
n.曲解;堕落;反常 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
214 attentive | |
adj.注意的,专心的;关心(别人)的,殷勤的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
215 discriminate | |
v.区别,辨别,区分;有区别地对待 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
216 disseminated | |
散布,传播( disseminate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
217 accomplished | |
adj.有才艺的;有造诣的;达到了的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
218 abreast | |
adv.并排地;跟上(时代)的步伐,与…并进地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
219 eloquence | |
n.雄辩;口才,修辞 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
220 adroitness | |
参考例句: |
|
|
221 Ford | |
n.浅滩,水浅可涉处;v.涉水,涉过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
222 bowers | |
n.(女子的)卧室( bower的名词复数 );船首锚;阴凉处;鞠躬的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
223 propulsive | |
adj.推进的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
224 apparatus | |
n.装置,器械;器具,设备 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
225 precisely | |
adv.恰好,正好,精确地,细致地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
226 diffusion | |
n.流布;普及;散漫 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
227 perverted | |
adj.不正当的v.滥用( pervert的过去式和过去分词 );腐蚀;败坏;使堕落 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
228 swell | |
vi.膨胀,肿胀;增长,增强 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
229 unlimited | |
adj.无限的,不受控制的,无条件的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
230 trenchant | |
adj.尖刻的,清晰的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
231 crookedness | |
[医]弯曲 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
232 crooks | |
n.骗子( crook的名词复数 );罪犯;弯曲部分;(牧羊人或主教用的)弯拐杖v.弯成钩形( crook的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
233 presumption | |
n.推测,可能性,冒昧,放肆,[法律]推定 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
234 vocal | |
adj.直言不讳的;嗓音的;n.[pl.]声乐节目 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
235 obstructing | |
阻塞( obstruct的现在分词 ); 堵塞; 阻碍; 阻止 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
236 overtime | |
adj.超时的,加班的;adv.加班地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
237 permissible | |
adj.可允许的,许可的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
238 depletion | |
n.耗尽,枯竭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
239 serial | |
n.连本影片,连本电视节目;adj.连续的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
240 narratives | |
记叙文( narrative的名词复数 ); 故事; 叙述; 叙述部分 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
241 contravene | |
v.违反,违背,反驳,反对 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
242 lawful | |
adj.法律许可的,守法的,合法的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
243 citation | |
n.引用,引证,引用文;传票 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
244 immoral | |
adj.不道德的,淫荡的,荒淫的,有伤风化的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
245 judgment | |
n.审判;判断力,识别力,看法,意见 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
246 infringe | |
v.违反,触犯,侵害 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
247 contravenes | |
v.取消,违反( contravene的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
248 bolster | |
n.枕垫;v.支持,鼓励 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
249 constrained | |
adj.束缚的,节制的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
250 lumber | |
n.木材,木料;v.以破旧东西堆满;伐木;笨重移动 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
251 tenement | |
n.公寓;房屋 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
252 promptly | |
adv.及时地,敏捷地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
253 traction | |
n.牵引;附着摩擦力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
254 subversive | |
adj.颠覆性的,破坏性的;n.破坏份子,危险份子 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
255 rebate | |
v./n.折扣,回扣,退款;vt.给...回扣,给...打折扣 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
256 dilatory | |
adj.迟缓的,不慌不忙的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
257 positively | |
adv.明确地,断然,坚决地;实在,确实 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
258 dignified | |
a.可敬的,高贵的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
259 overloaded | |
a.超载的,超负荷的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
260 payrolls | |
n.(公司员工的)工资名单( payroll的名词复数 );(公司的)工资总支出,工薪总额 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
261 expenditures | |
n.花费( expenditure的名词复数 );使用;(尤指金钱的)支出额;(精力、时间、材料等的)耗费 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
262 compensated | |
补偿,报酬( compensate的过去式和过去分词 ); 给(某人)赔偿(或赔款) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
263 detailed | |
adj.详细的,详尽的,极注意细节的,完全的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |