Postmaster General Hitchcock opened for the department. He said his study of the postage rate problem had led him to believe that certain fundamental principles of administration, almost new to the Postoffice Department at present, should be closely adhered to. These included the operation of the service on a self-supporting basis, maintained by imposing5 such charges as would yield an income equal to the expenses. They included, also, he said, such an adjustment of the postage charges as would make each class of mail matter pay for its own handling, and no more. He would further have the levying6 of postage rates made on the basis of the average cost of handling and carriage for the country as a whole, and, finally, postal7 laws should be enacted8 so definite in character as to be easy of interpretation9 and susceptible10 of uniform enforcement.
Mr. Hitchcock stated in this connection that when the books for the fiscal11 year of 1911 are closed they will show for the first time in many years a surplus of postal funds, and he hoped that this condition would become permanent. Mr. Hitchcock opposed any new classification of mail matter at this time, saying the present classification could be made to include all matter now admissible, and he doubted the expediency12 of attempting a revision. He then sought to set forth13 the large share second-class matter has in the burdens of the department, and the small percentage it pays of the total cost or even of its own cost.
“During 1910,” he said, “there were carried in the mail 8,310,164,623 pieces of first-class mail, consisting of letters, other sealed matter, and postal cards. This mail averaged in weight 0.35 of an ounce a piece, making 45.1 pieces to the pound. The cost of handling and carriage for this mail was $86,792,511.35, an average of 47 cents a pound, while the postage charge was $154,796,668.08, leaving a clear profit of $68,004,156.73.
“During the same year there were carried 4,336,259,864 pieces of second-class[182] matter, newspapers and other periodical publications, averaging 3.33 ounces a piece, or 4.8 pieces to the pound. The cost of handling and carriage was $80,791,615.03, or a little less than 9 cents a pound, while the postage return was only $10,607,271.02, leaving a total loss of $70,184,344.01.
“From a review of the rates provided for the several classes of mail, it will be observed that in comparison with the cent-a-pound charge for second-class matter the rate on third-class matter is 700 per cent. higher; that on fourth-class matter 1,500 per cent. higher, and that on letter and other first-class matter 3,100 per cent. higher. While it is true that the expense of handling and carrying second-class mail is less than for any other class, due to the size and weight of single pieces, to relief from the cancellation14 of stamps, and to the fact that a considerable part of the bagging, sorting, and labeling in the offices of origin is done by the publishers, nevertheless a charge of 1 cent a pound covers but a small fraction of the actual cost.[6]
“The present self-supporting condition of the service is made possible only by the fact that other classes of mail, particularly the first-class, are excessively taxed to make up the loss caused by the inadequate15 charge on the second-class. This will be better understood when it is noted16 that although first-class matter comprised during the fiscal year 1910 only 13.4 per cent. of all the revenue-producing domestic mail, it yielded a net profit of $68,004,156.73, while second-class matter, comprising 65.6 per cent. of all the revenue-producing domestic mail, yielded but $10,607,271.02, leaving the tremendous loss of $70,184,344.01. Thus the deficit17 caused by the heavy loss on the handling and carriage of second-class matter was greater than the profit obtained from first-class matter.”
Mr. Hitchcock here made a plea for equalization of the rate on second-class matter on the ground that it would at once make possible the reduction of letter postage from 2 cents to 1 cent an ounce. This reduction would come about from the fact, he said, that the present profit in handling first-class matter was approximately equal to the loss sustained in the transportation of second-class mail.
Mr. Hitchcock said, however, that he did not believe that the rate for second-class mail should be at once advanced to where it would cover the cost of handling and carriage, although that should be the ultimate end in view.
“For the present,” said he, “an increase of only one cent a pound is recommended, thus making a flat rate of 2 cents a pound, which should be regarded as merely tentative, however, leaving for future determination such additional increase as may be found necessary to meet the cost.”
The Postmaster General served notice on the commission that if by any chance it should see fit to recommend the continuance of the present rate—a “merely nominal18 postage rate,” he called it—his department could not consistently[183] do otherwise than renew its recommendation for a higher rate of postage on the advertising19 portions of magazines.
I need make no comment on that address beyond the comment implied in the phrases and wording I have marked for italics. That Mr. Hitchcock still purposes to “put over” the injustices20 covered in his Senate rider amendment21 to the postoffice appropriation22 bill is made baldly clear. That he still is working that “deficit” as a sort of “come-on” to his purpose is equally clear. And the ridiculous, if not ludicrous, feature of this talk before the commission is that it comes after he has demonstrated and publicly announced that there is no deficit in the Postoffice Department for the fiscal year, 1910-11.
As Mr. M. H. Madden states in a letter to me, printed on a previous page, Mr. Hitchcock reports a profit of one to three million dollars for the fiscal year named.
Later, if I remember rightly, he discovered a stealage—pardon me, I mean he discovered an “excess”—of from $9,000,000 to $14,000,000 in railway mail pay.
Just in this connection I wish to say that Mr. Hitchcock is deserving of the praise and commendation of every one of us American citizens for the aggressive way in which he has cut down expenditures23 in his department without impairing24 its service. Also is he deserving of equal praise and commendation from us for his vigorous and fairly successful methods of going after that railway mail haulage steal, which has been going on for a time to which the younger generation of our citizens wots not of. Although I may adversely26 criticise27 a man, as in this volume I have criticised Mr. Hitchcock, I like the man who puts up a stiff fight for a cause, even though I believe his cause is wrong. Candidly28 I can see no reason why Mr. Hitchcock and his predecessor29 postmaster generals should so worry themselves over a “deficit” in the Postoffice Department—a department in which a surplus should never be expected and never allowed to become permanent.
But our present Postmaster General has, by his aggressive action and close scrutiny30 of the loose, wasteful31 methods under which the vast business of his department is carried on, disposed of the “deficit” and found a surplus.
In this he has done what his predecessors32 failed to do.
For this he merits our highest praise and commendation.[184] Personally I yield it to him, untrammeled and in full meed. I object only to his attempt to saddle upon second-class mail—the one-cent-a-pound-matter—the burden of recouping the government for the losses on rural route and star route service and the railway mail pay stealage. I object because I not only believe, but I know as comprehendingly and as comprehensively as does he, that the second-class matter carried in the mails today at one cent a pound should be carried and handled at a profit at that rate.
I also know that just as second-class mail (periodicals), is cut down in distribution in just about the same proportion will the revenue from first, third and fourth class mail be cut down.
It is because of this firm belief, that I oppose Mr. Hitchcock’s, to me, absurd purpose and attempt to make “each division or class of mail pay for its carriage and handling.”
I am also opposing his manifest attempt to “play favorites” in legislation and to secure bureaucratic33 powers for his department—in contravention of my constitutional rights—to your constitutional rights.
I take the following from the New York Call of August 26. The Call captions34 it as “Hitchcock’s Sum Up.” It evidences the fact that he still follows his folly—that he is still after those “few magazine publishers” and after them, too, on his “rider” lines.
The Call reports as follows:
“The attorneys for the magazines,” said Postmaster Hitchcock in summing up the government’s case, “have presented this matter of advertising in magazines in such a way as to leave the impression that there is a controversy35 over it. There is none. The department knows that the advertising matter in magazines produces first-class mail and that the postoffice is benefited in that way. The important question is: What effect will a whole increase of 1 cent a pound have on the advertising? Will it be the means of stopping it?
“We feel that advertising would not be diminished by such an increase and if such is the case, all this information which we have heard today, interesting as it may be, is not to the point. Repeatedly we have heard the general argument against an increase in rates as though our recommendation is for a general increase. We don’t want that at all. What we are driving at is a readjustment. We are not trying to economize36 or save money. We have done that to the best of our ability already and want simply to increase the second-class rate so that the first will pay for itself, believing that in this way the greater number of people will be served.”
If Mr. Hitchcock is correctly reported in the above, it would[185] appear that something of a change has taken place in his mental landscape since he put his “rider” on the Senate speedway during the closing hours of the last session of Congress. “The department knows that the advertising matter in magazines produces first-class mail,” he now says.
Did the department know that fact when that “rider” was on the speedway? It most certainly did, if it then knew anything—that is anything about the sources of postal revenues. Did Mr. Hitchcock or any of his assistants, at the time referred to, make any vehement37 declaration of that knowledge—that advertising matter in magazines produces first-class revenue? If he or his assistants did so, no one has reported the fact of having heard such declaration.
In March, Mr. Hitchcock battles valiantly38 to have the advertising pages of magazines taxed four cents a pound for carriage and distribution. At that time he “estimated” that such increase in the mail rate on the advertising “sheets” of magazines would be equivalent to a rate of “about two cents a pound” on the entire magazine. As about one-half the full weight of our leading magazines—the magazines which Mr. Hitchcock, as previously stated, appears to be “after”—is in their advertising pages, his method of “estimating” must have been somewhat baggy39 at the knees last March. Any seventh or eighth grade grammar school pupil could have told him that a four-cent rate on one-half the weight and a one-cent rate on the other half is equivalent to a flat rate of two and one-half cents on the full weight.
However, we may leave that pass. It is past—has washed into the drift of time. If the Call correctly reports him, he is now willing, or was willing on August 25, 1911, to accept a flat rate of two cents a pound on all second-class matter. That shows some improvement over his “estimate” of March last. It would seem that Mr. Hitchcock is getting down nearer the tacks40 in this second-class mail rate question, and, as he has got rid of that annoying “deficit,” it can be hoped that he may yet see the fact—see that a one-cent-a-pound-rate is ample to cover the cost of carriage and handling of second-class mail matter.
Still, we must not be over-confident about what Mr. Hitchcock may or may not do. Regardless of what he said or may have said before the Hughes Commission at its recent session, it would appear[186] that he is still gunning for those independent magazines which have been guilty of telling the truth about both official and private corruptionists and corruption41 and also guilty of turning the sandblast of publicity42 on the veneer43 and varnish44 under which has been hiding much nastiness—political, financial and other—in this country. I say it appears that Mr. Hitchcock is still after those magazines. If such is not the fact, then why does he and the orators45 and exhorters of his department go junketing about the country lecturing and hectoring postmasters, instead of staying at home and attending to department affairs? If he is not on the same trail he “caught up” last March, why are he and his assistants trying so hard to work up sentiment favorable to an increase in second-class mail rates and a decrease of fifty per cent in first-class rates? Has any considerable number of our people been complaining about the first-class or letter postage rate? If there has been such complaints The Man on the Ladder has not heard of them. On the other hand, it is a known fact that millions of our people have protested and are still protesting against any raise in the second-class mail rate. Why, then, in face of these facts, is Mr. Hitchcock working so hard, so industriously46 and so adroitly47, if not, indeed, craftily48, to get the vast personnel of his department,—carriers, rural routers, star routers, railway mail clerks and postmasters—postmasters, from Hiram Hairpin49 at Crackerville, Ga., all the way up—fourth, third, second class postmasters to the first-class postmasters in our larger cities—why, I ask, is Mr. Hitchcock working so strenuously50 to get the vast political machine of his department lined up against the protest of millions of our people, unless he is still after those pestiferous, independent magazines?
Why, again, it may be asked, are he and his assistants coaching the 220,000 clerks of his department and the 60,000 postmasters, assistant postmasters, etc., on his “staff” to put up a promotion52 talk for a one-cent rate on first-class (letter or sealed) matter? It should be a one-cent rate. Nobody at all informed as to mail service rates and revenues will question that. But it is equally true that, up to a recent date, there have been, comparatively speaking (the comparison being with the millions protesting against an increase in the second-class rate) but few complaints and complainants against the present rate of two cents for carrying and handling a letter.
Why, then, I ask, is Mr. Hitchcock so actively53 cranking up his[187] departmental political machine to make neighborhood runs and do some hill climbing in advocacy of that one-cent rate for first-class matter? Yes, why?
Is it a legitimate54 assumption to say that the present agitation55 for a lowered rate on first-class matter found origin in Mr. Hitchcock? If it is, then what is he after?
To The Man on the Ladder it looks as if he was still after those magazines which have exposed—yes, even displayed—a weakness for telling the truth about men and conditions. Otherwise, why should he be arguing the postal “deficit” in March as cause and reason for his urgent efforts to make operative law out of that unconstitutional “rider” and now asking for a flat rate of two cents on second-class, and advocating a cut of fifty per cent in first-class, or letter, postage rates?
In his January-February-March talk, the “deficit” was the substructure of it all. By attending strictly56 to what the people understand as a Postmaster General’s business, Mr. Hitchcock faded the then $6,000,000 deficit into a few hundred thousand surplus, for the fiscal year recently ended. For this he deserves our highest commendation. He has mine. Why?
Because Mr. Hitchcock in converting that deficit into a surplus has done just what any one of his predecessors could have done in any year during the past thirty-five, if they had tried, and not been interfered57 with by dirty politics and dirty politicians.
Still, from the ladder top, it looks as if Mr. Hitchcock is after some one or ones. If my surmise58 is correct, who is it he is after, if not those publishers of magazines who are educating us as to the wrong and right of things in this government of ours?
That is for you to say, reader. That you may not think that the opinion just expressed is far fetched or an “individual” to bolster59 an opinion of the writer, I shall here quote a few paragraphs from an October issue of the Farm Journal of Philadelphia. The paragraphs are from an article written by Mr. Wilmer Atkinson, the Farm Journal editor and publisher.
I have on a previous page referred to and quoted Mr. Atkinson, and here I wish to emphasize, if my earlier reference did not do so, that Mr. Wilmer Atkinson is one of the best, if not the best, informed men in this country on cost of second-class mail carriage, handling[188] and distribution. Mr. Atkinson must also be credited with an acumen60 in watching and divining—sizing up—the purpose and intent of our Postoffice Department that is equaled by few, if any, other men in this country, Postmaster Generals not excepted. I have been studying this question for years. Mr. Atkinson has studied it for more years, and he has studied it, too, from a business man’s—a publisher’s—viewpoint, as he has been compelled to do, being the directing head of one of the most widely circulated and read farm journals in this country.
That aside, my purpose here is to reprint a few paragraph excerpts61 from a recent (October, 1911) issue of the Farm Journal—an editorial written by Mr. Atkinson himself and which shows that this astute62 student of the present federal postal affairs corroborates63 the position The Man on the Ladder has taken—which supports the statement previously made that Mr. Hitchcock is still gunning for those, to him, objectionable magazines.
The following is from the October issue of the Farm Journal, under the heading of “Our Monthly Talk:”
In response to invitation a number of gentlemen interested in postal questions came together for informal conference at North View, the summer residence of the undersigned, on September 20 and 21.
Those who met are the official representatives of the following associations:
The National Fraternal Press Association.
The Federation64 of Trades Press Association.
The Ohio Buckeye Press Association, and the Weekly Country Press of other states.
The National Catholic Editors’ Association.
The United Typothet? of America.
These gentlemen constitute a portion of the Publishers’ Commission now in process of formation. The representative of the American Medical Editors’ Association was unable to be present on account of a pressing engagement, and the member representing The Associated Advertising Clubs of America was absent in Europe.
This was the initial effort of the commission to bring the entire publishing fraternity of the country into such unity65 of spirit and purpose that something effective may be accomplished66 toward establishing not only just and honorable, but amicable67 and pleasant, relations with the Postoffice Department; to bring publishers of the different classes into harmony, in order that they may stand and act together for the protection and furtherance of their common interests, and for the cultivation68 of fraternal feelings among themselves.
There were three meetings held, two on the 20th and another on the morning of the 21st. After much earnest and harmonious69 discussion, it was decided70 that[189] the great need of publishers at this time is to have the light turned upon postal affairs, so that they may know where they are at. To best accomplish this purpose it was thought that there should be a Publishers’ bureau established at Washington, in charge of a first-class man, who would be the collector and distributor of information regarding postoffice doings, rulings, hearings and proposed postal legislation; this bureau also to publish a paper for circulation among publishers of all classes throughout the United States, which would keep them thoroughly71 informed as to postoffice rules, regulations, proceedings72 and acts of every description.
Much of the information publishers get now is fragmentary, uncertain, often considerably73 warped74 and belated cold-storage news, void of substantial life-sustaining qualities. The annual reports of the department in which publishers are most vitally interested are less complete than formerly75. Many important facts do not appear in them. For instance, no statement is ever made as to the amount of first-class matter originated by the second-class, none, or very little, account is made of it. No attempt has ever been made to gather, much less publish, statistics on the subject.
Formerly a list was accessible of publications annually76 thrown out of the mails at second-class rates, but not in recent years.
The report of the Third Assistant Postmaster-General in 1897 comprises 97 pages of compact statements and postal information in small type; that for 1901, 133 pages; while those for 1909 and 1910 contain only 60 and 65 pages in larger type, respectively. I am not censuring77 Mr. Britt in this matter, but simply stating facts.
Then as to the rulings, laws and regulations, there is not a publisher living who knows what they are, or can definitely ascertain78 what they are, from month to month. They are liable to change without the publishers being informed directly of the change. What purported79 to be “The Postal Laws and Regulations Relating to the Second-class of Mail Matter” was issued in 1910, but in it the law, rulings and regulations are so jumbled80 up together that it is difficult for a publisher to know which is which; instead of being illuminating81 and helpful, this compendium82 is confusing and involved in obscurity. It is a well recognized legal maxim83, that “where the law is uncertain there is no law.”
Publishers have not known that an active propaganda in favor of a higher rate has been in progress ever since Congress adjourned84, but such is the fact. The Postmaster General went before the Hughes Commission and advocated it.
The Third Assistant Postmaster General, in the early summer, made an address before some publishers in Chicago, wherein he stated that it was the purpose of the Postmaster General “to adjust postage rates based upon the principle of the payment on each class of mail matter of a rate of postage equal to the cost of handling and carriage, and no more, and that one class of mail matter shall not be taxed to meet deficiencies caused by an inadequate rate on another class,” meaning by this that the rate must be raised on second-class matter and lowered on the first class.
General DeGraw, Fourth Assistant Postmaster General, in an address before[190] the West Virginia Association of Postmasters, stated the purpose of the Postmaster General to be exactly what Mr. Britt declared it to be; and he had the postmasters pass a resolution indorsing the Postmaster General, and even as late as September 22, at Milwaukee, he advocated “the crystalization of the proposed increase in second-class mail rates into law.”
Jesse L. Suter, representing the Postoffice Department, brought greetings from the Postmaster General, to a round-up of postmasters in Michigan in August last, and said that “the great subsidy85 extended the publishers in the form of a ridiculously small rate of postage is unreasonable86. Were the publishers required to pay more in proportion to what it actually costs the government to transport their products, the people of the United States would be benefited. Every man, woman and child in the United States is taxed seventy-three cents by way of his letter postage over and above the cost of carrying his own letters in order to meet the deficiency of underpaid second-class matter.”[7] And then, of course, the postmasters passed a resolution thanking Mr. Suter for his “timely hints relative to second-class matter and commending the Postmaster General.”
On August 22 and 23, there was a postmasters’ convention at Toledo, Ohio, at which a resolution was proposed complimenting the Postmaster General “for his efforts to bring about a fair compensation from those enjoying the benefits of second-class rates.”
James B. Cook, Superintendent87 of the Division of Postoffice Supplies, Washington, D. C., also addressed a postmasters’ convention in the West, in which he said: “There is one thing I am going to ask you to do—it is a simple thing and one that should be near to your hearts. Certain publishers have attempted to create public sentiment against an increase of postage on advertising matter in magazines.… Many of us believe that the postage rate is class legislation of the rankest kind in favor of the few at the expense of the masses. Talk to your business men about it; the Postmaster General is going to win this fight because he is in the right. Tell the business men that the Postmaster General feels that he is entitled not only to their moral but their active support.”
At how many other state conventions the postmasters have been prompted to pass resolutions and have been addressed by Washington officials endorsing88 “the great fight” the Postmaster General is making for a higher postage rate, deponent sayeth not.
Thus it is that an energetic campaign has been carried on by the Postmaster General during the summer, postmasters being urged to pass resolutions and “talk to business men” in favor of an increase of postage rate on second-class matter in order, no doubt, to be ready when Congress meets to put the measure through.
In confirmation89 of the above, word comes from Washington to the effect that[191] “there has been no cessation in the activities of the department to make preparations to renew vigorously at the forthcoming Congress the fight for an increased rate. If the publishers feel that they have won their fight and are resting easily, they will have an awakening90 ere the year is over.”
While it would not be possible or advisable under the circumstances to circumscribe91 the activities of our energetic Postmaster General, certainly it would be a prudent92 and wise step for publishers to place themselves in position to know what is going on injurious to their own interests and that of the people of the whole country.
Now, Mr. Hitchcock is a brave and persistent93 fighter and as such will respect and honor those who will stand up like men and defend their cause, and can have only contempt for those who will meekly94 sit still while being pummeled to death.
If publishers are ever to establish honorable and just and amicable and pleasant relations with the Postoffice Department they must show that they are men with red blood in their veins95.
The essential thing will be to get the right man to represent us at Washington but this ought not to be difficult.
Among his duties will be to make inquiry96 into postal matters of every description that in any way relate to the publishing business and to publish them; publish orders of the department; rulings and proposed rulings; attend hearings and publish the proceedings; keep abreast97 of measures introduced in Congress and proposed by the Postoffice Department bearing upon the publishing business; keep subscribers fully3 posted on everything that occurs at Washington or elsewhere that concerns them; to advocate such reforms in the postal service as the people ask for and need, and finally to rally the whole fraternity to resist any threatened or actual encroachment99 upon the freedom and independence of the press.
Here are some of the qualifications necessary for the person fit to take charge of the Washington office: Some experience as editor and publisher; he must be honest and just; patriotic100; discreet101; firm; tactful; must have power as a writer; character as a gentleman; vision, courage, one who cannot be either frightened or cajoled; and finally, one who recognizes the fact that liberty of the press is a principle that lies at the foundation of republican institutions, and must not be encroached upon, or placed in jeopardy102.
I have made the above quotation103 from Mr. Atkinson to evidence the fact that he and others support my view of Mr. Hitchcock’s attitude now, in relation to this second-class mail rate question. Mr. Atkinson shows quite conclusively104 that our Postmaster General is still, and stealthily, running the trail which the Penrose-Overstreet Commission scented105 for him and urges publishers and the printing trades to be on their guard.
Some pages back I adverted106 to the fact that the deficit of $6,000,000 for the fiscal year 1909-10 was the ground-plan of Mr. Hitchcock[192] for an increase in second-class postage rates. That deficit he himself has converted into a surplus of several thousands of dollars.
Why, then, is he still trailing those independent periodicals?
Why, too, it is relevant to ask, did he so suddenly hear that the people of this country were crying for a cut of fifty per cent in first-class, or sealed, postage rates, much as the advertiser declares the children cry for Castoria? To the Man on the Ladder it appears that what Mr. Hitchcock heard must have been a “far cry”—very far. So far, indeed, that no one who did not have his ear to an ulterior motive could hear it.
You will observe that he worries a couple of years over a “deficit”—a little runabout, five H. P. deficit of $6,000,000. Then by doing a few things which common business sense imperatively107 dictates108 should be done, and which, it is well known among competents, any one of a dozen of Mr. Hitchcock’s predecessors should have done, or could have done had not dirty politics blocked them—by doing just a few of the business things which every student of the question knows could have been done and should have been done years ago, Mr. Hitchcock lost his “deficit”—his ground-plan for attack on second-class rates—and found a surplus instead.
The Man on the Ladder does not desire to appear impertinent nor even finicky in his type conversation on this point, but in simple justice to the magnitude of the question he is constrained110 to ask: Is a “deficit” so essentially111 necessary to Mr. Hitchcock in a fight to put certain independent periodicals on the financial skids112 that he must, losing one deficit, immediately set about creating another?
That is just what his move to cut the mail rate on first-class, or sealed, matter must lead to—lead to temporarily of course. In the end a one-cent rate per ounce or fraction thereof will win to a paying basis. That rate will mean a cut of sixteen cents a pound from thirty-two cents a pound for carriage and handling letters and other sealed matter of the first-class. Certainly the postoffice can haul and distribute such matter at a profit at that rate. However, it is equally certain that the department will not handle such matter at a profit for two, three or more years—not so handle it until numerous causes of waste, inhering in the department for years, are sloughed113 and the department put under strict business management,[193] and not left under partisan114 political management as now and as it has been for thirty-five or forty years.
With the postal and post card facilities now furnished at the one-cent rate, no considerable number of our people are complaining about the two-cent rate for letters and other sealed matter. But all will welcome a flat rate of one cent on such matter at the present weights. If they get it, either with or without Mr. Hitchcock’s assistance, the people will be getting only what they are entitled to, deficit or no deficit. However, if Mr. Hitchcock thinks a “deficit” necessary armament in his fight to increase second-class mail rates—to increase such rates, as it would appear, on a certain few periodicals which print and publish what the people want to hear and read and not what a few federal officeholders tell them to print and publish, then a cut of 50 per cent in the present first-class postage rates will most certainly create that deficit for him.
In a few years, of course, after business has adjusted itself to the lower rate and the fathers, mothers and sweethearts of the country have learned that they can write a letter to John, Mary, Thomas or Lucy and have it delivered for one cent, whereas it now costs two cents, then Mr. Hitchcock’s created deficit will fade away—will again fade into a surplus.
In the meantime, however, Mr. Hitchcock and associate coterie115 who apparently116 are gunning for periodicals which dare tell the truth, will have a “deficit” to use as wadding in their verbal, oratorical117 and franked ordnance118.
The 1910 report of the Postoffice Department sets up something over $202,000,000 as receipts from cancellation of stamps, or stamp sales. Of course, millions of dollars’ worth of those stamps were bought for and canceled in third and fourth class service, catalogues, books, etc.—in third-class carriage and handling, and merchandise parcels in fourth class. One has no data—nor can he obtain such data from the Postoffice Department records—to show what sum or portion of that $202,000,000 worth of stamps was canceled in the transmission of letters and other sealed matter of the first-class. But it may be conservatively stated that if Mr. Hitchcock succeeds in cutting down or curtailing119 the circulation of weekly and monthly periodicals—especially their advertising pages—he will have no trouble in finding,[194] for two or three years at least, a shrinkage of from $50,000,000 to $75,000,000 in that stamp account.
That, with the falling away in paid second-class matter, will provide him a “deficit” which should make him jubilant—should furnish wadding for his embrasured guns for two or three years in his attack on those recalcitrant120 periodicals which attend to their own business in a clean, truthful121 way and expect nothing of a Postmaster General other than that he attend strictly and efficiently122 to his business, to the business of the Postoffice Department—to the business of collecting, transporting and distributing the federal mails.
I have probably discussed Mr. Hitchcock, his faults and his excellencies sufficiently123. I will therefore, pass to another phase of our general subject.
THE HUGHES COMMISSION.
First, however, I must introduce a few paragraphs here in summary of the work done by the Hughes Commission at its August session in New York City. The commission comprised Associate Justice Hughes, President Lowell of Harvard University, and H. A. Wheeler, President of the Chicago Association of Commerce. That this triumvirate of gentlemen will act disinterestedly124 and fairly, so far as their knowledge and the evidence relating to postal affairs extends, there is here no question.
That they have not and will not dig up and uncover facts and data relating to the haulage and handling of second-class mail matter, beyond that already known to and on file with government officials, is equally certain. No finer trinity of men could well have been selected by President Taft, but the fact is none of the three has had any opportunity to make a study of the federal mail service, second-class or other. Or if they have had such opportunity, the press of official and private business in other lines and directions preventing, in large extent, their study of postal service costs and affairs. No doubt, these three gentlemen will do the very best and fairest they can—or know how to do—with the evidence presented to them. Still, I am of the opinion that they will discover little which has not already been discovered—which, as Congressman125 Moon said on the floor of the House last March (1911), “has already been discovered and filed for departmental and official reference.” Each of them is a man of high[195] academic training but neither of them, so far as The Man on the Ladder has been able to learn, had made, as previously stated, any qualifying study of federal postal affairs. So the best we have a right to expect from them is that they will tell the story, draped in new or different verbiage126, told by predecessor commissions on second-class postal rates, costs of haulage and handling the same, etc.
Incidentally it may be said with all due courtesy and respect that the Hughes Commission will probably succeed in spending the $50,000 appropriated for its expenses, subsistence, incidentals, etc. The present commission would not be loyal to precedent127 if it permitted any of that $50,000 to return to the general fund as an “unexpended balance.”
Just here I desire to introduce a few items from the testimony128 of Mr. Wilmer Atkinson before the Hughes Commission, which, in August last began strenuous51 efforts to spend $50,000 and to discover and report upon facts anent the cost of hauling and handling second-class mail matter—which facts have already been collected, collated129 and filed with labored131, likewise expensive, care somewheres in the government’s archives. I have quoted from Mr. Atkinson several times in forward pages. I desire to quote here from his testimony before this Hughes Commission, because the Hughes Commission is the latest and “best seller” on the second class mail shelf and because I recognize in Mr. Atkinson one of the first and most dependable authorities in the country on the cost of carriage, handling and distribution of mail—whether of the second or any other class. Especially do I desire to quote part of his testimony before the Hughes Commission because I am of the opinion that the reader, as well as the Commission, must necessarily gather forcefully pertinent109 facts from it:
To ascertain what second-class matter costs has been found to be a puzzling proposition. Many have tried to solve the puzzle and all have failed.
The Joint132 Congressional Commission consisting of Penrose, Carter and Clay for the Senate, and Overstreet, Moon and Gardner for the House, with the aid of numerous expert accountants, at a cost of a quarter of a million dollars (according to the President’s statement), attempted it and gave it up. All these gentlemen are on record as declaring that it is a task impossible of accomplishment133.
Senator Bristow, a former Assistant Postmaster General, who has given postal questions much careful study, said in a recent speech that “It does not cost nine cents a pound, nor can the Department ascertain with even approximate accuracy what is the cost of handling any special class of mail. It would be just as[196] easy for the Pennsylvania Railroad to state in dollars and cents what it costs to haul a ton of coal from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh, or 100 pounds of silk from Pittsburgh to Indianapolis, as for the Postoffice Department to state what it costs the Department to handle newspapers or magazines. Anyone familiar with transportation knows that such calculations cannot be made with accuracy, because there are so many unassignable expenses that must be considered—expenditures that cannot be subdivided134 and assigned to the different classes of freight. The same is true as to the different classes of mail.”
Postal officials have exhausted135 conjecture136 as a basis for a correct solution of this problem. Nearly every year there has been a new guess. Mr. Madden, Third Assistant Postmaster-General for seven years up to 1907, guessed that it cost 4 cents a pound. His successor, Mr. Lawshe, guessed 2? cents and then the next year 4 cents. For the last two years the Department’s guess has been 9 cents.
The Penrose-Overstreet Commission declared, while it is impossible to ascertain with certainty what the cost is, the members of the Commission gave it as their opinion that “One cent a pound is approximately adequate compensation for handling and transporting second-class matter.”
I am confident that there is a better way of solving the problem than has heretofore been tried. This consists in the direct application of plain, old-fashioned common sense to it. A little gumption137 in such a matter as this is far better than fanciful guessing or astute figuring by experts, who are bent138 on finding something that is not there.
In working out this problem I have adopted a method quite different and have obtained results quite unlike the foregoing. I show the relation of second-class mail to stamp mail extending over a period of 25 years, from 1885 to 1910. This covers the entire period since the institution of the cent a pound rate.
I go back still further to 1876 when the postage rate on newspapers was 4 times greater than now, when the sale of stamps was less than one-eleventh what it is now, and while deficits139 were larger.
The highest point reached in the weight of second-class matter previous to the institution of the present rate, was 101,057,963 pounds.
It has been repeatedly declared officially that second-class matter originates large quantities of other classes of mail, and in the official figures we have the proof.
While population increased from 1885 to 1910 only a little more than double, the revenue from the sale of stamps, etc., and the weight of second-class matter, each increased over 5 times. No other possible reason can be assigned for the increase in stamp mail, and the tremendous development of every branch of the postal business 5 times faster than the growth of population, than the increased circulation and influence of the newspaper and periodical press, brought about by the reduced postage rate.
Second-Class matter would have long ago wiped out all deficits and created an enormous annual surplus had it not been for the great burdens which weighed the service down.[197]
There would have been a surplus, instead of a deficit, every year since 1901, had allowance been made for the extraordinary cost of free rural delivery, and in 1910, the surplus would have been $31,075,170.12.
If also allowance had been made for free government matter, other than the Postoffice Department’s own free matter, being sent stamped as first-class matter is, the surplus for 1910 would have been $51,075,470.12 and these figures like all others here given, are from official reports.
A VAST INCREASE OF EXPENDITURES.
Not only did stamp mail, under the stimulus140 of the steady and enormous increase of second-class matter, enable the Department to meet the cost of rural delivery while reducing the deficit, but it also met and overcame the immense increase of the annual expenditures for railroad transportation which grew from $33,523,902.18 in 1901 to $44,654,515.97 in 1910: of salaries to postmasters, assistants and clerks which grew from $32,790,253.39 in 1901 to $65,582,533.57 in 1910, of the railway mail service which grew from $9,675,436.52 to $19,385,096.97 in 1910, and of the city delivery service which grew from $15,752,600 in 1901 to $36,841,407.40 in 1910. In these four items alone there was an increase in annual expenditures in the last ten years of $74,721,361.82, for which second-class matter was only in a very limited way responsible.
Entirely141 too much stress has been placed upon the cost of second-class matter, for it makes little difference whether it costs 2? cents or 4 cents or 9 cents, or even more, if it produce results commensurate with its cost, and this it would do if the cost were double the highest guess yet made. The Government could afford to carry it free rather than not carry it at all, for without it the bottom would drop out of the Postal Establishment. As long as the people get the benefit of the low rate, as they are doing now, for which we have official testimony, it matters not what the rate is except that it should be kept at the very bottom notch142.
WHY THE POSTAGE RATE WAS MADE LOW.
Even if the cost of second-class matter should be declared to be more than one cent per pound, it would not be good public policy for Congress to increase it, because much reading matter would be placed out of the reach of many who now are receiving the benefit of it.
Postmaster-General Meyer said in his report for 1908: “The charge for carrying second-class mail matter was intentionally143 fixed144 below cost for the purpose of encouraging the dissemination145 of information of educational value to the people, and the benefit of the cheap rate of postage is passed on to the subscriber98 in a lower subscription146 price than would otherwise be possible.”
The Hon. Charles Emory Smith truly declared: “Our free institutions rest on popular intelligence, and it has from the beginning been our fixed and enlightened policy to foster and promote the general diffusion147 of public information. Congress has wisely framed the postal laws with this just and liberal conception.
“It has uniformly sought to encourage intercommunication and the exchange of intelligence. As facilities have cheapened, it has gradually lowered all[198] postage rates. It has never aimed to make the postal service a source of profit, but simply to make it pay its own way and to give the people the benefit of all possible advancement148.
“In harmony with this sound and judicious149 policy, it has deliberately150 established a low rate of postage for genuine newspapers and periodicals, with the express design of encouraging and aiding the distribution of the recognized means and agencies of public information.
“It is not a matter of favor, but of approved judgment151. It is not for the publishers, but for the people.”
The testimony of Senator Bristow is that, “I am glad we have got a one-cent rate of postage for the legitimate newspapers and magazines of the country, and I would rather decrease it than raise it. The beneficiaries are the poor people themselves, who now get daily papers at from $2 to $4 a year, when they used to pay from $10 to $12. They now get magazines from $1 to $1.50, when they used to pay $4 to $6 per year for magazines of no higher grade.” …
And I would remind the Commission that there are millions of laboring152 men and women who cannot afford to add to their living expenses the cost of any but the very cheapest reading matter, and many not even that. After buying food and clothing and providing shelter there is scarcely anything left in the home for cultivating the intellect and informing the mind.
When sickness intervenes, then comes the stress of debt, and if death follow, the future has to be drawn153 upon to give the dead a burial such as love would provide. Are these people, the bone and sinew of the land, those in the humble154 walks of life, not to be considered when it is proposed to add to the cost of the family reading?
It surely should not be made more difficult for the poor to obtain that which is so essential to their welfare and that of the Republic of which they form an important part.…
“But here I cannot forbear to recommend,” said George Washington, in his message to Congress, on November 6, 1792, “a repeal155 of the tax on the transportation of public prints. There is no resource so firm for the government of the United States as the affections of the people, guided by an enlightened policy; and to this primary good, nothing can conduce more than a faithful representation of public proceedings diffused156 without restraint throughout the United States.”
NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS.—THE DIFFERENCE.
An effort was made in the closing hours of the 61st Congress to increase the postage rate on magazines. It is my opinion that the postage rate should remain uniform as it is now upon all classes of publications. There should be no partiality shown, there should be no discrimination. A proposal to increase the rate on magazines alone, is not one that should have the endorsement157 of this Commission nor the approval of Congress, as I shall endeavor to show.
Under Section 432 of the Postal Laws and Regulations, “A newspaper is held to be a publication regularly issued at stated intervals158 of not longer than one week; a periodical is held to be a publication regularly issued at stated intervals less frequently than weekly.”
[199]
A magazine is nowhere defined in the Postal Laws and Regulations. A law that would increase the postage rate on “magazines,” without an explicit159 definition of the word, would apply to just such publications as the Postmaster-General might select in the administration of the law, and none others. No such power of discrimination should be vested in any official. The Postmaster-General is an executive, not a judicial160 officer, nor a lawmaker.
It has been wisely and aptly said that this is a government of laws and not of men; that there is no arbitrary power located in any individual or body of individuals; but that all in authority are guided and limited by those provisions which the people have, through the organic law, declared shall be the measure and scope of all control exercised over them.
There seems to be no good reason why a newspaper, which is carried in the mails once a day or once a week, should pay a less rate than a monthly or quarterly. If the Government really loses money in handling and transporting second-class matter, the loss would be greater on the former than on the latter, because a daily goes through the mails 365 times a year, a weekly 52 times, while a monthly only goes 12 times, and a quarterly 4 times.
We learn from official records that daily newspapers comprise 40.50 per cent. of all second-class matter, weeklies 15.23 per cent., papers devoted161 to science 1.30, to education .64, religious 5.91, trade 4.94, agriculture 5, magazines 20.23, and miscellaneous 6.25. Note that it is stated that 20.23 of the whole consists of magazines; but what is a magazine? We are nowhere told, and the percentage quoted has the appearance of being founded upon conjecture.…
This Commission may not be aware of the fact that the Pennsylvania Railroad will take, and does take, packages of papers for all of the great newspapers that are published along its lines, and transports them in the baggage cars for one-quarter of a cent per pound, to any station on the line, whether it is ten miles from the place of origin, or 1,000 miles from the place of origin. And yet the Department is paying the railroads approximately two cents a pound for hauling the newspapers of the country.
The papers are delivered by the publishers to the train just the same as the publisher delivers his newspapers to the train when they are sent by mail. These packages are delivered to the depots162 of the railroads, and the parties to whom they are sent call at the depots for the packages. If they are sent by mail the publisher delivers them at the train, and the parties to whom they are addressed call at the postoffice for the packages. The postoffice Department does not go to the newspaper office and get the mail. The publisher delivers the newspapers to the mail trains, the same as he delivers them to baggage cars for the railroad company.
And possibly the Commission has not been informed that the express companies have a contract with the American Publishers’ Association whereby they agree to receive newspaper packages of any size, and deliver them to their destination within a limit of 500 miles, for one-half cent per pound. The express company does not call at the newspaper office for the papers. The publisher delivers them to the express car, the same as he delivers his papers to the mail car. The express company then takes these newspapers, consisting of packages[200] of any size, from a single wrapper to a 100-pound bundle, and delivers them at the other end of the line to the addresses, if the distance is not greater than 500 miles, for half a cent a pound, and by its contract with the railroad the express company pays the railroad only a quarter of a cent a pound.
The Department figures show that the average distance which newspapers are hauled is less than 300 miles. Yet the Department is paying about two cents a pound to the railroad for that which the express companies pay but a quarter of a cent a pound. The express companies only charge the publisher one-half cent a pound, while the Government charges him one cent a pound. The express companies pay the railways one-fourth a cent a pound, while the Government pays about two cents—eight times as much—for exactly the same service. The express companies are glad to get the business, and render more service than the Postoffice Department, because they deliver the packages of any size at the other end, which the Department does not do.
Senator Bristow is authority for the above statements concerning the railroad and express contracts.
…
Now I would not have this (class) newspaper and its annexes163 deprived of the low postage rate, but as the Postoffice Department has within the past ten years denied admission to the mails of 11,563 of other publications, and 32,000 others have been ruled out or died from the hard conditions imposed, I would respectfully request this Commission to ascertain and report to the President for transmission to Congress why there has never been a single publication of this class shut out or even molested164 in the slightest degree?
I do not say it is, but is it, because such papers are politically powerful, that they have the ear of the public, that they hold a monopoly of the news, and that they can make or unmake the reputation of public officials at will, and that therefore they are immune from interference?…
I have here a copy of the Police Gazette, which I take to be a superior paper of its class. It is held to be a newspaper, entitled to transmission through the mails at a cent a pound. It has never been proposed to raise the postage rate on this paper.…
This Commission should endeavor to find out and report to the President for transmission to Congress, why the postage rate on one-half of the periodicals devoted to agriculture should be increased from one cent to three cents, and the postage rate on the Police Gazette should remain at one cent.
HEARINGS BEFORE THE HUGHES POSTAL COMMISSION.
I intended to follow the hearings before this commission personally. Ill health prevented my doing so. Under this stress, I asked my friend, Mr. M. H. Madden, quoted on a previous page in connection with other phases of our general subject, to summarize for me the hearings of the commission in August. Mr. Madden kindly[201] consented to do so. Following is what he writes me relating to the commission’s proceedings and hearings:
The first meeting of the commission took place on August 1, and it continued its hearings in New York City, with occasional adjournments during the greater part of the month.
Postmaster General Hitchcock represented his department before the commission, Second Assistant Stewart and Third Assistant Britt were also present, each in turn occupying the stand. Hitchcock outlined his position concerning a demand for an increase for the first time, although the same idea was expressed by Third Assistant Britt some months ago, when Britt made an address before a convention of newspaper circulation managers in Chicago. Hitchcock and his two assistants held to the view that each schedule in the postal service should be made self-sustaining, the credit for this idea being given to Hitchcock, and in order to justify165 his position concerning a raise in second-class rates an arbitrary figure has been placed on the cost of handling the same, the total “deficit” from this schedule being placed at about $70,000,000 annually. This amount was arrived at by what Second Assistant Postmaster General Stewart states was a complete record of the weighing of all mail handled by the Postoffice Department of matter originating in every postoffice and railway postoffice in the country for a period of six months from July 1 to December 1, 1907, together with the amount of mail carried in every railway car. The department in many instances has admitted the unreliability of the figures used, there having been many estimates employed.
Publishers of the country were represented by several attorneys who examined into the testimony given by Hitchcock, Stewart and Britt, and by a series of questions they showed that the conclusions of the three as to cost of handling second-class mail were made on a guesswork plan and not on a scientific or reasonably accurate basis of fact. Third Assistant Postmaster General Britt made the startling statement that “if all the magazines and newspapers were excluded from the second-class rates because of a circulation gained, not on the merits of the publication, but because of some voting contest or offer of premiums166 as a bait, not 10 per cent. of the total would remain undisturbed.”
This declaration was looked upon as an argument by the magazine publishers as favoring their contention167 that the advertising portions of their periodicals are justified168 by legitimate business reasons, as an increased volume of advertising enables publishers to issue periodicals of much higher literary excellence169. The postal authorities held with firmness to the conviction that advertising matter in publications is primarily for the advantage of the publisher, and therefore should be charged a higher rate than reading matter. Postmaster General Hitchcock went on record before the commission as declaring that he would recommend to Congress an increase on the advertising portion of magazines and newspapers of a cent a pound additional. Assuming that the postoffice officials are prompted by a legitimate purpose in their desire to increase rates on second-class matter, their arguments before the commission have been transparently170 weak, and an unbiased mind they would fail in convincing, but the feeling is that the commission will accept the conclusions of the postal authorities that[202] the government rate of one cent a pound is inadequate for transporting second-class matter. To justify the position taken by the government that each schedule should maintain itself, the Postmaster General intends to press with vigor25 a reduction of first-class postage from two-cents to one cent a letter, he citing the profit on first-class mail and the alleged171 loss on second-class matter as his reason for the change of rate.
Religious and denominational publications were represented before the commission, the contention being made by these that the doubling of the rate on second-class matter would work very serious injury to the religious press, forcing many publications out of business. This statement was made by E. R. Graham, representing the Methodist Book Concern publications in Cincinnati and New York, and seemingly it made an impression on the members of the commission. The attorneys representing the publishers were much interested in Mr. Graham’s statement, he being considered a competent authority on the matter.
One of the strongest arguments of the hearings, because of the experience which he has had as a postal official, was made by Mr. W. S. Shallenberger, who had served several years in Congress as a member of the Committee on Postoffice and Postroads. Mr. Shallenberger was for a number of years Second Assistant Postmaster General, and now represents the Interdenominational Publishers who issue Sunday school literature throughout the United States. This witness gave it as his opinion that an increase in the rate on second-class matter would cause magazines and newspapers to avail themselves of the facilities now offered by the express companies which are becoming active competitors of the government in transporting second-class matter, these corporations obtaining better rates from the railroads than is given to the government. Mr. Shallenberger expressed the view that since every civilized172 nation was cheapening the cost of postal service the fact that our country was seeking to increase the rate seemed to be reactionary173.
Mr. Shallenberger served under six Postmaster Generals and all of these held that the government was carrying second-class matter at a loss. But his opinion was that there was a substantial profit in the present rate, at the same time condemning174 the idea that each particular schedule should be made to pay its own way, the stimulus toward encouraging other schedule receipts not being given its proper consideration. Mr. Shallenberger gave a hint concerning hidden influences seeking to have the second-class rate increased but did not enter deeply into this phase of the subject. The controversy between Mr. Shallenberger and Second Assistant Stewart was animated175 and prolonged, and touched on features connected with the compensation paid railroads for hauling the mail, the express companies getting better terms than the government, this statement being made by a representative of the Postal Progress League.
The strongest point the publishing interests made was when the superintendent of the railway mail service, Chas. H. McBride, testified that a considerable part of the estimate upon which the department’s figures are based is guesswork and assumption, he admitting that if this were so the result would not be greatly different from what the officials first claimed. On the whole Superintendent[203] McBride’s testimony was calculated to show that the Postoffice Department was desirous of making out a case against the second-class schedule, however necessary it was to twist figures and conceal176 facts in order to do so.
Mr. Wilmer Atkinson, publisher of Farm Journal, Philadelphia, combated the contention of the postoffice officials, as shown in their statements and tables, and declared with much emphasis that second-class matter stimulated177 first-class postage receipts. The statement of the cost of carrying second-class matter, placing it at nine cents a pound, is, according to him, “only a stereotyped178 guess that goes into the postoffice department report, each year,” experts having repeatedly stated that there is no possible way of fixing the cost of carrying second-class mail. In the opinion of Mr. Atkinson the government could better afford to carry it free than not to carry it at all. “Gumption and common sense,” declared Mr. Atkinson, “should rather be applied179 than indulging in worthless guessing.”
Representatives of scientific publications, college journals, fashion papers, fraternal societies and trade periodicals appeared before the members of the commission during the sessions, and all entered emphatic180 protests against the increase. In numerous instances these interests made the statement that serious reverses would be encountered if the postage rate should be doubled, and that many publications would be forced to suspend.
The labor130 union press, an interest representing about 250 weekly and monthly publications, with a circulation approximating 1,250,000 copies was officially represented by President Samuel Gompers of the American Federation of Labor, and President Matthew Woll, of the Photo-Engravers’ union. Mr. Gompers entered vigorous protests against discriminations against labor publications and registered a severe censure181 of the method by which the Postoffice Department had hampered182 the official journals of the labor people. Mr. Gompers stated that the publications of the American Federation of Labor and its auxiliaries183 were all highly educational in their character and, in the event of an increase in the item of postage to the extent of 100 per cent additional, many of the best would be driven out of business with corresponding loss to the men individually and to the nation as a whole. Mr. Gompers’ declaration was listened to with much interest.
President Woll dwelt on the far-reaching effect which the hampering184 of the labor press would have on the manifold business relationships involved in the printing industry, primarily directing attention to the more than a third of a million of workers in the printing trades alone. He then advanced to the foundation of the paper and machinery185 features of the proposition, viz., from the ore in the mine, from which the machinery was made, to the forest tree from which the pulp186 is ground. The tonnage of the transportation service of the country would at once be doubly interfered with, first in a reduced demand for material with which to make the paper and, secondly187, the corresponding decrease in the weight of the finished product of the publications. In many features Mr. Woll made prominent the ideas which the “Postal Riders and Raiders” is promoting, including[204] the educational features of the immense volume of printing which comes from the printing press in all sections of the country.
The commission adjourned, subject to the call of Justice Hughes. However, it is understood that it will be called together in time to prepare its report to President Taft and to Congress when the session opens in December, 1911.
FOOTNOTES
[6] Mr. Hitchcock, it should be noted, is careful in giving the higher per cent. of rate which the third and fourth classes show above the second class rate. Beyond the bare statement that the expense of handling second class matter “is less” than for other classes, he says nothing of cost of carriage and handling. His own figures show (see preceding paragraph), that the cost of carriage and handling first-class matter is 422 per cent. higher than his own absurd cost-figure of 9 cents a pound (cost) for carriage and handling second-class and 4600 per cent. higher than the present second class rate.
[7] Mr. Suter must certainly have been wind-jamming a little. “Every man, woman and child” pays at a maximum rate of 2 cents an ounce or fraction thereof. That is at the rate of 32 cents a pound. Mr. Hitchcock’s figures assert, that it costs “47 cents a pound” to carry and handle the letters for “every man, woman and child”—that is, presuming they all write letters. The letter writers, it appears then, pay only 2 cents for a service which costs nearly 3 cents.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
previously
|
|
| adv.以前，先前（地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
motive
|
|
| n.动机，目的；adv.发动的，运动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
convened
|
|
| 召开( convene的过去式 )； 召集； （为正式会议而）聚集； 集合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
imposing
|
|
| adj.使人难忘的，壮丽的，堂皇的，雄伟的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
levying
|
|
| 征（兵）( levy的现在分词 )； 索取； 发动（战争）； 征税 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
postal
|
|
| adj.邮政的，邮局的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
enacted
|
|
| 制定（法律），通过（法案）( enact的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
interpretation
|
|
| n.解释，说明，描述；艺术处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
susceptible
|
|
| adj.过敏的，敏感的；易动感情的，易受感动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
fiscal
|
|
| adj.财政的，会计的，国库的，国库岁入的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
expediency
|
|
| n.适宜；方便；合算；利己 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
cancellation
|
|
| n.删除，取消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
inadequate
|
|
| adj.(for,to)不充足的，不适当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
noted
|
|
| adj.著名的，知名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
deficit
|
|
| n.亏空，亏损；赤字，逆差 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
nominal
|
|
| adj.名义上的；(金额、租金)微不足道的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
advertising
|
|
| n.广告业；广告活动 a.广告的；广告业务的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
injustices
|
|
| 不公平( injustice的名词复数 )； 非正义； 待…不公正； 冤枉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
amendment
|
|
| n.改正，修正，改善，修正案 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
appropriation
|
|
| n.拨款，批准支出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
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： |
|
|
|
|
24
impairing
|
|
| v.损害，削弱( impair的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
vigor
|
|
| n.活力，精力，元气 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
adversely
|
|
| ad.有害地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
criticise
|
|
| v.批评，评论；非难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
candidly
|
|
| adv.坦率地，直率而诚恳地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
predecessor
|
|
| n.前辈，前任 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
scrutiny
|
|
| n.详细检查，仔细观察 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
wasteful
|
|
| adj.（造成）浪费的，挥霍的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
predecessors
|
|
| n.前任( predecessor的名词复数 )；前辈；（被取代的）原有事物；前身 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
bureaucratic
|
|
| adj.官僚的，繁文缛节的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
captions
|
|
| n.标题，说明文字，字幕( caption的名词复数 )v.给（图片、照片等）加说明文字( caption的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
controversy
|
|
| n.争论，辩论，争吵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
economize
|
|
| v.节约，节省 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
vehement
|
|
| adj.感情强烈的；热烈的；(人)有强烈感情的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
valiantly
|
|
| adv.勇敢地，英勇地；雄赳赳 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
baggy
|
|
| adj.膨胀如袋的，宽松下垂的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
tacks
|
|
| 大头钉( tack的名词复数 )； 平头钉； 航向； 方法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
corruption
|
|
| n.腐败，堕落，贪污 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
publicity
|
|
| n.众所周知，闻名；宣传，广告 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
veneer
|
|
| n.(墙上的)饰面，虚饰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
varnish
|
|
| n.清漆；v.上清漆；粉饰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
orators
|
|
| n.演说者，演讲家( orator的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
industriously
|
|
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
adroitly
|
|
| adv.熟练地，敏捷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
craftily
|
|
| 狡猾地，狡诈地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
hairpin
|
|
| n.簪,束发夹，夹发针 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
strenuously
|
|
| adv.奋发地，费力地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
strenuous
|
|
| adj.奋发的，使劲的；紧张的；热烈的，狂热的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
promotion
|
|
| n.提升，晋级；促销，宣传 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
actively
|
|
| adv.积极地，勤奋地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
legitimate
|
|
| adj.合法的，合理的，合乎逻辑的；v.使合法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
agitation
|
|
| n.搅动；搅拌；鼓动，煽动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
strictly
|
|
| adv.严厉地，严格地；严密地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
interfered
|
|
| v.干预( interfere的过去式和过去分词 )；调停；妨碍；干涉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
surmise
|
|
| v./n.猜想，推测 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
bolster
|
|
| n.枕垫；v.支持，鼓励 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
acumen
|
|
| n.敏锐，聪明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
excerpts
|
|
| n.摘录，摘要( excerpt的名词复数 )；节选（音乐，电影）片段 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
astute
|
|
| adj.机敏的，精明的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
corroborates
|
|
| v.证实，支持（某种说法、信仰、理论等）( corroborate的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
federation
|
|
| n.同盟，联邦，联合，联盟，联合会 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
unity
|
|
| n.团结，联合，统一；和睦，协调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
accomplished
|
|
| adj.有才艺的；有造诣的；达到了的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
amicable
|
|
| adj.和平的，友好的；友善的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
cultivation
|
|
| n.耕作，培养，栽培（法），养成 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
harmonious
|
|
| adj.和睦的，调和的，和谐的，协调的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
thoroughly
|
|
| adv.完全地，彻底地，十足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
proceedings
|
|
| n.进程，过程，议程；诉讼(程序)；公报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
considerably
|
|
| adv.极大地；相当大地；在很大程度上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
warped
|
|
| adj.反常的；乖戾的；（变）弯曲的；变形的v.弄弯，变歪( warp的过去式和过去分词 )；使（行为等）不合情理，使乖戾， | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
formerly
|
|
| adv.从前，以前 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
annually
|
|
| adv.一年一次，每年 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
censuring
|
|
| v.指责，非难，谴责( censure的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
ascertain
|
|
| vt.发现，确定，查明，弄清 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
purported
|
|
| adj.传说的，谣传的v.声称是…，（装得）像是…的样子( purport的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
jumbled
|
|
| adj.混乱的；杂乱的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
illuminating
|
|
| a.富于启发性的，有助阐明的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
compendium
|
|
| n.简要，概略 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
maxim
|
|
| n.格言，箴言 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
adjourned
|
|
| （使）休会， （使）休庭( adjourn的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
subsidy
|
|
| n.补助金，津贴 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
unreasonable
|
|
| adj.不讲道理的，不合情理的，过度的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
superintendent
|
|
| n.监督人，主管，总监；(英国)警务长 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
endorsing
|
|
| v.赞同( endorse的现在分词 )；在（尤指支票的）背面签字；在（文件的）背面写评论；在广告上说本人使用并赞同某产品 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
confirmation
|
|
| n.证实，确认，批准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
awakening
|
|
| n.觉醒，醒悟 adj.觉醒中的；唤醒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
circumscribe
|
|
| v.在...周围划线，限制，约束 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
prudent
|
|
| adj.谨慎的，有远见的，精打细算的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
persistent
|
|
| adj.坚持不懈的，执意的；持续的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
meekly
|
|
| adv.温顺地，逆来顺受地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
veins
|
|
| n.纹理；矿脉( vein的名词复数 )；静脉；叶脉；纹理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
inquiry
|
|
| n.打听，询问，调查，查问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
abreast
|
|
| adv.并排地；跟上(时代)的步伐，与…并进地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
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： |
|
|
|
|
99
encroachment
|
|
| n.侵入，蚕食 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
patriotic
|
|
| adj.爱国的，有爱国心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
discreet
|
|
| adj.(言行)谨慎的；慎重的；有判断力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
jeopardy
|
|
| n.危险；危难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
quotation
|
|
| n.引文，引语，语录；报价，牌价，行情 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
conclusively
|
|
| adv.令人信服地，确凿地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
scented
|
|
| adj.有香味的；洒香水的；有气味的v.嗅到(scent的过去分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
adverted
|
|
| 引起注意（advert的过去式与过去分词形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
imperatively
|
|
| adv.命令式地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
dictates
|
|
| n.命令，规定，要求( dictate的名词复数 )v.大声讲或读( dictate的第三人称单数 )；口授；支配；摆布 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
pertinent
|
|
| adj.恰当的；贴切的；中肯的；有关的；相干的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
constrained
|
|
| adj.束缚的,节制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
essentially
|
|
| adv.本质上，实质上，基本上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
skids
|
|
| n.滑向一侧( skid的名词复数 )；滑道；滚道；制轮器v.（通常指车辆） 侧滑( skid的第三人称单数 )；打滑；滑行；（住在）贫民区 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
sloughed
|
|
| v.使蜕下或脱落( slough的过去式和过去分词 )；舍弃；除掉；摒弃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
partisan
|
|
| adj.党派性的；游击队的；n.游击队员；党徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
coterie
|
|
| n.(有共同兴趣的)小团体，小圈子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
oratorical
|
|
| adj.演说的，雄辩的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
ordnance
|
|
| n.大炮，军械 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
curtailing
|
|
| v.截断，缩短( curtail的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
recalcitrant
|
|
| adj.倔强的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
truthful
|
|
| adj.真实的，说实话的，诚实的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
efficiently
|
|
| adv.高效率地，有能力地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
disinterestedly
|
|
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
Congressman
|
|
| n.（美）国会议员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
verbiage
|
|
| n.冗词；冗长 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
precedent
|
|
| n.先例，前例；惯例；adj.在前的，在先的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
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： |
|
|
|
|
130
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： |
|
|
|
|
131
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： |
|
|
|
|
132
joint
|
|
| adj.联合的，共同的；n.关节，接合处；v.连接，贴合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
accomplishment
|
|
| n.完成，成就，（pl.）造诣，技能 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
subdivided
|
|
| 再分，细分( subdivide的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
exhausted
|
|
| adj.极其疲惫的，精疲力尽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
conjecture
|
|
| n./v.推测，猜测 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
gumption
|
|
| n.才干 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
bent
|
|
| n.爱好，癖好；adj.弯的；决心的，一心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
deficits
|
|
| n.不足额( deficit的名词复数 )；赤字；亏空；亏损 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
stimulus
|
|
| n.刺激，刺激物，促进因素，引起兴奋的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
notch
|
|
| n.(V字形)槽口，缺口，等级 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
intentionally
|
|
| ad.故意地，有意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
fixed
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
dissemination
|
|
| 传播,宣传,传染(病毒) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
subscription
|
|
| n.预订，预订费，亲笔签名，调配法，下标（处方） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
diffusion
|
|
| n.流布；普及；散漫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
advancement
|
|
| n.前进，促进，提升 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
judicious
|
|
| adj.明智的，明断的，能作出明智决定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
deliberately
|
|
| adv.审慎地；蓄意地；故意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
laboring
|
|
| n.劳动，操劳v.努力争取(for)( labor的现在分词 )；苦干；详细分析；（指引擎）缓慢而困难地运转 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
humble
|
|
| adj.谦卑的，恭顺的；地位低下的；v.降低，贬低 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
repeal
|
|
| n.废止，撤消；v.废止，撤消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
diffused
|
|
| 散布的，普及的，扩散的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
endorsement
|
|
| n.背书；赞成，认可，担保；签(注)，批注 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
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： |
|
|
|
|
159
explicit
|
|
| adj.详述的，明确的；坦率的；显然的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
judicial
|
|
| adj.司法的，法庭的，审判的，明断的，公正的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
devoted
|
|
| adj.忠诚的，忠实的，热心的，献身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
depots
|
|
| 仓库( depot的名词复数 )； 火车站； 车库； 军需库 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
annexes
|
|
| 并吞( annex的名词复数 )； 兼并； 强占； 并吞（国家、地区等）； 附加物，附属建筑( annexe的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
molested
|
|
| v.骚扰( molest的过去式和过去分词 )；干扰；调戏；猥亵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
166
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： |
|
|
|
|
167
contention
|
|
| n.争论，争辩，论战；论点，主张 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
168
justified
|
|
| a.正当的，有理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
169
excellence
|
|
| n.优秀，杰出，(pl.)优点，美德 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
170
transparently
|
|
| 明亮地，显然地，易觉察地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
171
alleged
|
|
| a.被指控的，嫌疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
172
civilized
|
|
| a.有教养的，文雅的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
173
reactionary
|
|
| n.反动者，反动主义者；adj.反动的，反动主义的，反对改革的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
174
condemning
|
|
| v.（通常因道义上的原因而）谴责( condemn的现在分词 )；宣判；宣布…不能使用；迫使…陷于不幸的境地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
175
animated
|
|
| adj.生气勃勃的，活跃的，愉快的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
176
conceal
|
|
| v.隐藏，隐瞒，隐蔽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
177
stimulated
|
|
| a.刺激的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
178
stereotyped
|
|
| adj.(指形象、思想、人物等)模式化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
179
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
180
emphatic
|
|
| adj.强调的，着重的；无可置疑的，明显的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
181
censure
|
|
| v./n.责备；非难；责难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
182
hampered
|
|
| 妨碍，束缚，限制( hamper的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
183
auxiliaries
|
|
| n.助动词 ( auxiliary的名词复数 )；辅助工，辅助人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
184
hampering
|
|
| 妨碍，束缚，限制( hamper的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
185
machinery
|
|
| n.(总称)机械，机器；机构 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
186
pulp
|
|
| n.果肉，纸浆；v.化成纸浆，除去...果肉，制成纸浆 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
187
secondly
|
|
| adv.第二，其次 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |