First, a just adjudication of such a piece of legislation as that proposed in Mr. Hitchcock’s rider amendment would put from thirty to fifty per cent of our weaker (but excellent) periodicals on the financial rocks—put them out of business. They consume thousands of tons yearly of pulp-wood paper.
It will, I think, be freely admitted that such periodicals would be out of—forced out of—the pulp-wood market—I mean out of the wood-pulp paper market, which amounts to the same thing.
But that is not all. The strong weeklies and monthlies are not going to be put out of business by legislation of that rider character. They will continue in business. They will meet its unjust exactions by readjustments. They are printing on sixty to eighty pound stock. Some parts of their periodicals are printed on even heavier stock. They will go to the paper mills and demand lighter stock, of special finish—and their demands will be met—and fifty to sixty pound stock will be used. The special finish will give the reader just as presentable a magazine, typographically, as he now receives.
But you observe that the publisher will be saving from twenty to fifty per cent in stock weight.
You will also observe that the paper mills will be using twenty to fifty per cent less wood pulp than they are now using.
You will also observe that the railroads will haul twenty to fifty per cent less of pulp timber and less wood-pulp paper than they now haul.
“Only a few magazine publishers will be affected,” eh?
Let us “recast” as far as we have gone.
The owners of pulp wood acres or stumpage would be affected, would they not? There are probably three to five hundred of them in the country, taken at a low estimate.
They are not of the “few magazine publishers” are they?