Before quoting the publishers, however, I desire to say two things:
1. The periodical publishers must necessarily know, I take it, more about the business of printing and distributing periodicals than Mr. Hitchcock has been able to learn about that business in the two politically swift years he has been on his present job.
2. The publishers in replying—in presenting the facts—are entirely too dignified. Of course, dignity is a fine thing—an elegant decoration for our advanced and super-polished civilization. But when some human animal deliberately and industriously tries to shunt on to your siding a carload or more of “deficits” and other partisan and “vested interest” junk, and tells you its price is so much and that you have to pay the price—well, at about that point in the progress of our splendid civilization, I think it both the part of justice and of thrift to lay dignity on the parlor couch and walk out on your own trackage, making as you loiter along a few plain and easily understood remarks. That is just what I believe these publishers should have done when Mr. Hitchcock covertly tried to deliver to them, charges collect, his several large consignments of talk about “deficits,” “cost of carriage and handling second-class matter,” “publisher’s profits” and other subjects about which he was either equally ill-informed or ill-advised.
Yes, there are occasions when it is quite proper to hang one’s dignity on that nail behind the kitchen door and sally forth in shirt sleeves with top-piece full of rapid-fire conversation.
With these suggestions, from which it is hoped the publishers may take a few hints for future guidance when Presidents and Postmaster Generals undertake to deliver to them a cargo of cold-storage stuff that was “off color” before it left the farm, I will proceed to do what I have several times started to do—quote the publisher on Mr. Hitchcock’s ring-around-a-rosy method of figuring.
In quoting from the publishers’ “exhibits” it is due to Senator Owen that we reprint a few paragraphs from his foreword. In speaking to “the merits of the case,” the Senator said:
Separate and apart from the fact that this proposed amendment violates the Constitution of the United States and the rules of the Senate, I regard such method of legislation as unwise, if not reprehensible, for the reason that, in effect, it is a denial of the right to be heard by those who are deeply interested in it. Over a year ago the periodical publishers affected desired to be heard in this matter, and were not given a proper hearing on this vital question. Indeed, they appear to have been left under the impression that nothing would be done in regard to the matter; or, at all events, they seem to have been under this impression. When the matter came before the House of Representatives and the committee having the matter in charge, no discussion of this matter took place. No report on it was made. No opportunity to be heard was afforded. Neither was the matter discussed on the floor of the House. When the postoffice appropriation bill came to the Senate, no hearing was afforded, but at the last minute, after the committee had practically concluded every item on the appropriation bill, this item was presented, not only giving the periodical publishers no opportunity to be heard, but giving the members of the committee no opportunity to study this matter and to digest it. I regard it as grossly unfair, and at the time in the committee I reserved the right to oppose this amendment on the floor of the Senate.
In the affairs affecting our internal administration I am strongly opposed to any secrecy.
In my judgment, the claim made by the Postoffice Department is erroneous on its face, for the obvious reason that it is conceded that these magazines are brought by express and distributed in Washington, D. C., over 250 miles from New York, at less than 1 cent a pound for cost of transportation and distribution. The Postoffice Department declares that it costs 9 cents a pound. This is a mere juggling of figures.