Why should the Administration have gone to a small 20 per cent portion of the second-class mail to increase postal rates? The Postmaster General gives the magazine weight as 20 per cent of the whole second-class mail, and newspapers as 55.73 per cent. Why leave out the largest classification entirely and concentrate all the new tax on a little 20 per cent classification, which in profit-making and tax-bearing capacity is vastly smaller than even the figures of 20 per cent and 55.73 per cent indicate?The real reason why the Administration concentrated its fire on the magazines is well known.But let us look at the reasons given by the Administration—given hurriedly and weakly, and almost absurdly easy to disprove.Why are newspapers exempt and magazines punished to the point of confiscation?The Administration says (a) magazines carry more advertising than newspapers; (b) they cost the Postoffice Department more than newspapers, because they are hauled farther.(a) It is not true that magazines carry more advertising than newspapers. By careful measuring the entire superficial area and the advertising contents, respectively, of each of 36 daily newspapers and each of 54 periodicals—the chief advertising mediums of the country—it is found that magazines averaged 34.4 per cent advertising, newspapers averaged 38.08 per cent advertising.(b) The statement that magazines cost the Postoffice Department more per pound than newspapers is easily susceptible of final disproof from the department’s own figures—the most extreme figures it has been able to bring forward in its attempts to prove acase against the magazines.The Postoffice Department states that owing to the different average lengths of haul, it costs 5 cents to transport a pound of magazines and 2 cents to transport a pound of newspapers.Admit that these figures,often repeated in the department’s reports, arecorrect. Let us see how the final cost of service for a pound of magazines looks beside the final cost of service to a pound of newspapers.Besides the cost of transporting mail, figured of course by weight and length of haul, there are three huge factors of cost, apportioned according to the number of pieces of mail—rural free delivery, railway-mail service, and postoffice service (Postoffice Department pamphlet, “Cost of transporting and hauling the several classes of mail matter,” 1910).TRANSPORTATION COST OF MAGAZINES AND NEWSPAPERS.By weighing carefully the representative magazine, every copy of a year’s issue of 64 leading magazines, and by weighing 60 different classes of newspapers, daily and Sunday, the postal committee of the Periodical Publishers’ Association has found that the magazine weighs, on the average,12.3 ounces and the newspaper 3.92 ounces.The Postmaster General’s report for 1909 furnishes the total pounds of second class mail—764,801,370—and the proportion of newspapers and magazines in this weight—55.73 per cent and 20.23 per cent, respectively.This gives 154,719,317 pounds of magazines in the mails and 426,223,803 pounds of newspapers.The cost of transporting these, by the Postoffice Department’s figures, is 5 cents a pound for transporting magazines and 2 cents a pound for transporting newspapers, making $7,735,965.85 for hauling magazines and $8,524,476.06 for hauling newspapers.THE HANDLING COST.But the department says specifically, in the pamphlet referred to above, that the handling cost it apportions according to the number of pieces, in three classifications of expense—the railway mail service, rural free delivery, and postoffice service. The total cost of these items charged against second-class matter is (Postmaster General’s report, 1909), $39,818,583.86.The total number of pieces of second-class mail handled was 3,695,594,448 (H. Doc. 910, “Weighing of the Mails.”)Newspapers, averaging 3.92 ounces each, and weighing in the mails altogether 426,223,803 pounds, furnished 1,740,000,000 pieces to handle (taking round millions, which would not affect the percentages), or 47.17 per cent of all second-class pieces.The 154,719,317 pounds of magazines, weighing 12.3 ounces each, furnished 201,260,000 pieces to handle, or 5.44 per cent of all second-class pieces.Figuring these piece percentages on $39,818,583.86, the expense which the department says should be apportioned according to the number of pieces,and which it does so apportion, we have the handling cost on the 154,719,317 pounds of magazines $2,166,139.96, or 1.4 cents per pound.The newspaper-handling cost would be 55.73 per cent of $39,818,583.86, or $28,782,425.10, which, divided by the total of newspaper pounds, gives us the handling cost of a pound ofnewspapers 6.75 cents.THE NET RESULT.So, using the department’s own figures and methods of figuring, we have thecost of hauling and handling magazines, 5 cents plus 1.4 cents, or 6.4 cents; the cost of hauling and handling newspapers, 2 cents plus 6.75 cents, or 8.75 cents.This shows that without going into the miscellaneous expenditures at all, which would slightly further increase the cost of newspapers as compared with magazines, the department’s own figures show that it is losing on the fundamental operations of hauling and handling 7.75 cents a pound on 426,223,803 pounds of newspapers, or $33,032,844.73, as against losing 5.4 cents a pound on 154,719,317 pounds of magazines, or $8,354,843.11.With a loss, according to its own figures, over 400 per cent as great on newspapers as on magazines, the department goes to the magazines, of scarcely one-third the weight of newspapers, and with not one-twentieth the financial ability to pay such a new tax, to meet the whole burden of its futile and confiscatory attempt to reduce the deficit.Furthermore, the advertising in magazines, which the department proposes to tax out of existence, is the very national mail-order advertising that produces the profitable revenue, as against the local announcements in the newspapers of the class of page department-store advertisements, etc., which do not call for answers through the mails under first-class postage (see Exhibit F).And, still further, the modern newspaper of large circulation is more of a magazine, as distinguished from a paper chiefly devoted to disseminating news and intelligence and discussion of public affairs, than the modern magazine. Compare the “magazine sections” of the large newspapers (and most of the balance of their Sunday issues), with publications like the Review of Reviews, World’s Work, Current Literature, Literary Digest, Collier’s Weekly, or even with Everybody’s, the American, the Cosmopolitan and McClure’s, to see the obvious truth of this statement.
Why should the Administration have gone to a small 20 per cent portion of the second-class mail to increase postal rates? The Postmaster General gives the magazine weight as 20 per cent of the whole second-class mail, and newspapers as 55.73 per cent. Why leave out the largest classification entirely and concentrate all the new tax on a little 20 per cent classification, which in profit-making and tax-bearing capacity is vastly smaller than even the figures of 20 per cent and 55.73 per cent indicate?
The real reason why the Administration concentrated its fire on the magazines is well known.
But let us look at the reasons given by the Administration—given hurriedly and weakly, and almost absurdly easy to disprove.
Why are newspapers exempt and magazines punished to the point of confiscation?
The Administration says (a) magazines carry more advertising than newspapers; (b) they cost the Postoffice Department more than newspapers, because they are hauled farther.
(a) It is not true that magazines carry more advertising than newspapers. By careful measuring the entire superficial area and the advertising contents, respectively, of each of 36 daily newspapers and each of 54 periodicals—the chief advertising mediums of the country—it is found that magazines averaged 34.4 per cent advertising, newspapers averaged 38.08 per cent advertising.
(b) The statement that magazines cost the Postoffice Department more per pound than newspapers is easily susceptible of final disproof from the department’s own figures—the most extreme figures it has been able to bring forward in its attempts to prove acase against the magazines.
The Postoffice Department states that owing to the different average lengths of haul, it costs 5 cents to transport a pound of magazines and 2 cents to transport a pound of newspapers.
Admit that these figures,often repeated in the department’s reports, arecorrect. Let us see how the final cost of service for a pound of magazines looks beside the final cost of service to a pound of newspapers.
Besides the cost of transporting mail, figured of course by weight and length of haul, there are three huge factors of cost, apportioned according to the number of pieces of mail—rural free delivery, railway-mail service, and postoffice service (Postoffice Department pamphlet, “Cost of transporting and hauling the several classes of mail matter,” 1910).
TRANSPORTATION COST OF MAGAZINES AND NEWSPAPERS.
By weighing carefully the representative magazine, every copy of a year’s issue of 64 leading magazines, and by weighing 60 different classes of newspapers, daily and Sunday, the postal committee of the Periodical Publishers’ Association has found that the magazine weighs, on the average,12.3 ounces and the newspaper 3.92 ounces.
The Postmaster General’s report for 1909 furnishes the total pounds of second class mail—764,801,370—and the proportion of newspapers and magazines in this weight—55.73 per cent and 20.23 per cent, respectively.
This gives 154,719,317 pounds of magazines in the mails and 426,223,803 pounds of newspapers.
The cost of transporting these, by the Postoffice Department’s figures, is 5 cents a pound for transporting magazines and 2 cents a pound for transporting newspapers, making $7,735,965.85 for hauling magazines and $8,524,476.06 for hauling newspapers.
THE HANDLING COST.
But the department says specifically, in the pamphlet referred to above, that the handling cost it apportions according to the number of pieces, in three classifications of expense—the railway mail service, rural free delivery, and postoffice service. The total cost of these items charged against second-class matter is (Postmaster General’s report, 1909), $39,818,583.86.
The total number of pieces of second-class mail handled was 3,695,594,448 (H. Doc. 910, “Weighing of the Mails.”)
Newspapers, averaging 3.92 ounces each, and weighing in the mails altogether 426,223,803 pounds, furnished 1,740,000,000 pieces to handle (taking round millions, which would not affect the percentages), or 47.17 per cent of all second-class pieces.
The 154,719,317 pounds of magazines, weighing 12.3 ounces each, furnished 201,260,000 pieces to handle, or 5.44 per cent of all second-class pieces.
Figuring these piece percentages on $39,818,583.86, the expense which the department says should be apportioned according to the number of pieces,and which it does so apportion, we have the handling cost on the 154,719,317 pounds of magazines $2,166,139.96, or 1.4 cents per pound.
The newspaper-handling cost would be 55.73 per cent of $39,818,583.86, or $28,782,425.10, which, divided by the total of newspaper pounds, gives us the handling cost of a pound ofnewspapers 6.75 cents.
THE NET RESULT.
So, using the department’s own figures and methods of figuring, we have thecost of hauling and handling magazines, 5 cents plus 1.4 cents, or 6.4 cents; the cost of hauling and handling newspapers, 2 cents plus 6.75 cents, or 8.75 cents.
This shows that without going into the miscellaneous expenditures at all, which would slightly further increase the cost of newspapers as compared with magazines, the department’s own figures show that it is losing on the fundamental operations of hauling and handling 7.75 cents a pound on 426,223,803 pounds of newspapers, or $33,032,844.73, as against losing 5.4 cents a pound on 154,719,317 pounds of magazines, or $8,354,843.11.
With a loss, according to its own figures, over 400 per cent as great on newspapers as on magazines, the department goes to the magazines, of scarcely one-third the weight of newspapers, and with not one-twentieth the financial ability to pay such a new tax, to meet the whole burden of its futile and confiscatory attempt to reduce the deficit.
Furthermore, the advertising in magazines, which the department proposes to tax out of existence, is the very national mail-order advertising that produces the profitable revenue, as against the local announcements in the newspapers of the class of page department-store advertisements, etc., which do not call for answers through the mails under first-class postage (see Exhibit F).
And, still further, the modern newspaper of large circulation is more of a magazine, as distinguished from a paper chiefly devoted to disseminating news and intelligence and discussion of public affairs, than the modern magazine. Compare the “magazine sections” of the large newspapers (and most of the balance of their Sunday issues), with publications like the Review of Reviews, World’s Work, Current Literature, Literary Digest, Collier’s Weekly, or even with Everybody’s, the American, the Cosmopolitan and McClure’s, to see the obvious truth of this statement.
I have marked the fourth from last paragraph of the publishers’ “Exhibit C” to be set in italics. I did so for fear the hurried reader might gather a wrong impression from its wording. The publishers do not mean to say that it costs the government 7.75 cents a pound to carry and handle newspapers, nor 5.4 cents a pound to carry and handle magazines. It is aknown factthat both the newspapers and the magazinescan be carried and handledby the government at a profit at $20.00 a ton—at the cent-a-pound rate. Mr. Hitchcock asserted in the official brochure to which the publishers are here making reply, I take it, that second-class mail hauling and handling costs 9.23 cents a pound. In this “Exhibit C,” the publishers are proving that,even if his absurd claim as to cost were true, his method of apportioning that cost between newspapers and other periodicals is grossly unfair, as well as ridiculously wrong mathematically.
Then Mr. Hitchcock, or his department, suggests that the magazines meet the added charge put upon them for haul and handling byincreasing their sale price. That is, let the five, ten or fifteen-cent weeklies ring up five cents more per copy on subscribed and news stand prices—make the readers pay it. Let the monthlies do likewise.
That suggestion carries a sort of familiar resonance. “Make the rate (tariff) what the traffic will stand.”
Ever hear of it? If you have not, then you must have arrived as a mission child in the Chinese or Hindoostanese “field of effort,” and have lived there until the week before last.
Ring up the revenues and make the dear people pay it in added purchase price!
The people have a few dollars stored away in savings accounts or stockings, and if they want a thing they will broach their hoardings. They have the money. Wewantit.
One of the surest and easiest ways to get it is tomake them pay more for what they consider essentialsto their subsistence, to the comforts and the pleasures of their lives. They have been buying some splendid monthly periodicals at twelve and a half cents to fifteen cents. If they want them, why not make ’em pay twenty or twenty-five cents?
Yes, why not? It’s the people, and—well—
“To hell with the people.”
For four decades or more of our history, that “official” opinion of the “dear people” has delivered the goods. The Congress, or certain “fixed” members of it, told us that we needed, in order to be entirely prosperous and happy, a tariff on “raw” wool, “raw” cotton, “raw” hides, “raw” sugar and several other “raws,” assuring us that such action would greatly inure to our benefit.
Theylied, of course. But it took us fool people a generation or more to find out that fact. In that generation, the liars gathered multiplied millions of unearned wealth and passed it into the hands of “innocent holders,” most of whom, if our court news columns are correct, have been spending it to get away from the trousered or the skirted heirs they married.
The point, however, I desire to make here is that while this varied and various “raw” talk was being ladled to us—and most of us ordering a second serving—our patriotic friends in positions of legislative authority, and our commercial and business “friends” whosteered the “raw” talk, had “cornered” all the home-grown raw and wereselling us the manufactured product at two prices.
But this is aside. I inject it here merely to illustrate how easily andcontinuouslywe fool people are fooled.
Postmaster General Hitchcock’s prattle about the publishers recouping themselves by lifting the price on us is of a kind with all the other “raw” talk which has looted us for forty or more years.
We buy abetterperiodical—say a monthly—for fifteen cents today than we got for fifty cents thirty years ago.
Not only that: The fifteen-center tells us of ourwrongs, of how we were and arewrongedand of how we may right thewrongs. The fifty-center of thirty years ago told us largely of things which entertained us—things historically, geographically, geologically, astronomically, psychically or similarly informative and instructive. They told us little or nothing of how we were misgoverned—of howmisgovernmentsaps and loots anddegeneratesa people. That function of periodicaleducationwas left largely to the five, ten and fifteen-centers of the present day—periodicalsof price within reach of limited means and of a large, rapidly growing desire to know.
See the point? “No”? Well, then don’t go to arguing.
If you do not see the point, just sit up and shake yourself loose a little.
“A little wisdom is a dangerous thing”; “For much wisdom is much grief,” and similar old saws which truth-perverters glossed into sacred or classic texts. The people are gathering “wisdom” from these low-priced, carefully-written, independent periodicals—periodicals which tell the “raw” truth. It is dangerous. They will hurt themselves. We vested-interests people and “innocent holders” must set up some hurdles; must keep the dear,earningpeople from learning too much—from learning what weknow. Their chief source of enlightenment are the cheap, attractive, instructive, independent periodicals. Our first act should be to cut down—or cut out—this source of supply.
Then the dear people will come back and read what wehirewritten for them, and then—
Well, then the dear earners of dollars for us will not “learn wisdom” enough to hurt them or—us.
But, getting back to Mr. Hitchcock’s reported suggestion, ineffect, to advance the subscription or selling price of the magazines and others of the “few” periodicals that would be affected by his proposed “rider” legislation. I shall call attention to but one basic fact which his suggestion covers—intendedly or not, I know not.
To me, it appears better to do this by a few direct statements.
1. An advance of two or five cents a pound on the people’s subsistence supplies—meats, vegetables, etc.—or on a yard of textile fabric they must have to cover or shelter their nakedness,willbe met by them as long as they can dig up, or dig out, the funds to buy.
2. A corresponding advance in the price of some desired, or even needed, article which is notabsolutely necessary to subsist, clothe or shelter themwill induce them to hesitate before purchasing—will often lead to an exercise of self-denial which refuses to make the purchase—refuses, not because they do notwantthe article, but because they cannot afford it by reason of pressingsubsistence needs.
That these rules of domestic economy apply to the sale and circulation of periodicals was quite conclusively shown to Mr. Hitchcock by the publishers. Senator Owens adverts to this point as follows:
“It has been suggested that the magazines could collect the additional cost imposed on them byraising the priceof their magazines.”
He then quotes “Exhibit D” of the publishers in reply:
It has been shown (Exhibit A) from the original books of account of the chief magazine properties that the measure providing for a new postal rate of 4 cents a pound on all magazine sheets on which advertising is printed would wipe out the magazine industry—would require more money than the publishers make.Could not the burden be passed on to advertisers or subscribers, or to both?WHY ADVERTISERS WOULD NOT TAKE THE BURDEN.Magazine advertisers buy space at so much a thousand circulation. The magazine is required to state its circulation and show that the rate charged per line is fair. Some advertisers go so far as to insist on contracts which provide that if the circulation during the life of the contract falls below the guaranteed figures they will receive a pro rata rebate from the publisher.In view of the small net profits of the industry—it is shown in Exhibit A that the combined final profits of the five leading standard magazines of America are less than one-tenth of their total advertising income—it is clear that the publisher must be trying always to get as large a rate as possible for the advertising space he sells, and it is absolutely true that he has already got this rate up to the very maximum the traffic will bear.Advertisers would not think of paying more than they are now paying forthe same service. Some of them would use circulars under the third-class postal rate,which the Postmaster General says is unprofitable to his department. Most advertisers would simply find this market for their wares gone, and the thousands of people—artists, clerks, traveling men—engaged in the business of magazine advertising would lose their means of livelihood.There is no possible hope that the advertiser will pay the bill.WOULD THE SUBSCRIBER PAY THE INCREASED POSTAL RATE?The 4 cents a pound rate on advertising would require an advance of approximately50 per centin subscription prices if the publisher is to recoup himself by raising the cost of living to the public in its consumption of magazines.Would the public pay 50 per cent more for the same article?The question is answered eloquently and finally by the subscription records of the magazines that were forced to increase their rates on Canadian subscriptions when Canada enforced a 4-cent rate on American periodicals. As the discriminatory rate was later withdrawn in certain cases, we have a complete cycle of record and proof. First, the Canadian subscription list before the increase; second, the Canadian subscription list after the increased postal rate and increased subscription price to the Canadian public; third, the Canadian subscription list after the postal rate and the subscription price to the public had been restored to the original status.HERE IS THE RECORD OF THE REVIEW OF REVIEWS.In June, 1907, the Review of Reviews began to pay 4 cents a pound postage on Canadian subscriptions, instead of 1 cent, and was forced to raise its Canadian subscription price from $3 to $3.50 a year.Its Canadian yearly subscribers in July, 1907, numbered 2,973.At once the subscription list began to fall off, and continued to do so steadily until in January, 1910, it had come down to 904 names.Early in 1910 the Review of Reviews was readmitted into the Canadian postoffice at 1 cent a pound, its subscription was reduced to the old figure of $3, and the Canadian list quickly “came back,” having reached already in February, 1911, the figure of 2,690 annual subscribers.Below follows the detailed record, eloquent of what would happen if the prices of popular American magazines were increased 50 per cent to the public. In this Canadian incident the price of the Review of Reviews was increased only 16⅔ per cent and the circulation fell off 69 per cent.REVIEW OF REVIEWS—CANADIAN SUBSCRIBERS.June, 1907, began to pay extra postage2,840July, 19072,973August, 19072,921September, 19072,875October, 19072,761November, 19072,604December, 19072,260January, 19081,536February, 19081,330March, 19081,170April, 19081,350May, 19081,300June, 19081,363July, 19081,360August, 19081,407September, 19081,348October, 19081,357November, 19081,381December, 19081,299January, 19091,095February, 19091,163March, 19091,263April, 19091,321May, 19091,355June, 19091,353July, 19091,369August, 19091,371September, 19091,382October, 19091,237November, 19091,278December, 19091,227January, 1910904February, 1910974March, 19101,129February, 19112,690
It has been shown (Exhibit A) from the original books of account of the chief magazine properties that the measure providing for a new postal rate of 4 cents a pound on all magazine sheets on which advertising is printed would wipe out the magazine industry—would require more money than the publishers make.
Could not the burden be passed on to advertisers or subscribers, or to both?
WHY ADVERTISERS WOULD NOT TAKE THE BURDEN.
Magazine advertisers buy space at so much a thousand circulation. The magazine is required to state its circulation and show that the rate charged per line is fair. Some advertisers go so far as to insist on contracts which provide that if the circulation during the life of the contract falls below the guaranteed figures they will receive a pro rata rebate from the publisher.
In view of the small net profits of the industry—it is shown in Exhibit A that the combined final profits of the five leading standard magazines of America are less than one-tenth of their total advertising income—it is clear that the publisher must be trying always to get as large a rate as possible for the advertising space he sells, and it is absolutely true that he has already got this rate up to the very maximum the traffic will bear.
Advertisers would not think of paying more than they are now paying forthe same service. Some of them would use circulars under the third-class postal rate,which the Postmaster General says is unprofitable to his department. Most advertisers would simply find this market for their wares gone, and the thousands of people—artists, clerks, traveling men—engaged in the business of magazine advertising would lose their means of livelihood.
There is no possible hope that the advertiser will pay the bill.
WOULD THE SUBSCRIBER PAY THE INCREASED POSTAL RATE?
The 4 cents a pound rate on advertising would require an advance of approximately50 per centin subscription prices if the publisher is to recoup himself by raising the cost of living to the public in its consumption of magazines.
Would the public pay 50 per cent more for the same article?
The question is answered eloquently and finally by the subscription records of the magazines that were forced to increase their rates on Canadian subscriptions when Canada enforced a 4-cent rate on American periodicals. As the discriminatory rate was later withdrawn in certain cases, we have a complete cycle of record and proof. First, the Canadian subscription list before the increase; second, the Canadian subscription list after the increased postal rate and increased subscription price to the Canadian public; third, the Canadian subscription list after the postal rate and the subscription price to the public had been restored to the original status.
HERE IS THE RECORD OF THE REVIEW OF REVIEWS.
In June, 1907, the Review of Reviews began to pay 4 cents a pound postage on Canadian subscriptions, instead of 1 cent, and was forced to raise its Canadian subscription price from $3 to $3.50 a year.
Its Canadian yearly subscribers in July, 1907, numbered 2,973.
At once the subscription list began to fall off, and continued to do so steadily until in January, 1910, it had come down to 904 names.
Early in 1910 the Review of Reviews was readmitted into the Canadian postoffice at 1 cent a pound, its subscription was reduced to the old figure of $3, and the Canadian list quickly “came back,” having reached already in February, 1911, the figure of 2,690 annual subscribers.
Below follows the detailed record, eloquent of what would happen if the prices of popular American magazines were increased 50 per cent to the public. In this Canadian incident the price of the Review of Reviews was increased only 16⅔ per cent and the circulation fell off 69 per cent.
REVIEW OF REVIEWS—CANADIAN SUBSCRIBERS.
The next exhibit (“Exhibit E”) of the publishers shows quite conclusively “that it would be ruinous to them to raise the rates in the manner proposed,” and Senator Owen presents their plea.
I am going to reprint here their plea as presented in “Exhibit E,” but in doing so The Man on the Ladder desires to remark that the argument, as it has been megaphoned into our ears for the past three or four decades, that an increase of tax rate (whatever the nature of the tax), or a reduction of the tariff or selling rate would be “ruinous,” does not cut much kindling in his intellectual woodshed. It has been entirely a too common yodle either to interest or to instruct any intelligent man who has been watching the play and listening to the concert for forty years. This “ruinous” talk has been out of the cut glass, Louis XVI, Dore, Dolesche and other high-art classes ever since Mrs. Vanderbilt, as was alleged, discovered that Chauncey M. Depew was merely her husband’s servant, just as was her coachman.
If there is a congressional murmur or a legislative growl about cutting down a rail rate, the rail men immediately set the welkin a-ring with a howl about “ruin.” If someone rises with vocal noise enough to be heard in protest against paying 29 cents a pound for Belteschazzar’s “nut-fed,” “sugar-cured,” “embalmed” hams and insists that they should be on the market everywhere at not to exceed 23 cents, Bel. and his cohorts will immediately curdle all the milk in the country with a noise about ruin!ruin!RUIN!
If some statesman rises in his place and offers an amendment reducing the tariff on “K,” or cotton, or sugar; or providing that the government shall build two instead of four “first-class” battleships, the bugles are all turned loose tooting “ruin” for the “wool,” the “cotton,” the “shipbuilding” or other industry affected, as the case may be, and “ruin” will be spread and splattered in printers’ ink allover the country. No, your Man on the Ladder does not have much respect for this “ruin” talk, as it is usually “stumped” and “space-written” for us commoners in the industrial walks of life and in its marts of trade. But when he hears that warning sounded by men engaged in a business industry with which he himself is fairly familiar—a business he himself has several times had to put forth strenuous effort to “lighter” over financial shoals or “spar-off” monetary reefs—when it comes to talk of “ruin” among men engaged in the business of publishing periodical literature in this country, why, then, he gets down off the ladder andlistens.
There are two special and specific reasons whyeverycommoner—everyearner—should listen to the publishers’ arguments in proof that Mr. Hitchcock’s proposal means ruin to many of them—some ofeven the strongest and best.
1. An increase ofthree hundred per cent, as the Postmaster General sought in his “rider” (though somewhat covertly), in the carriage cost and delivery (rail or other) of its product wouldruinalmost any established business there is in this country, if such increase was forced in the limited time named in that “rider.” A suddenly enforced increase of even one hundred per cent in the haulage and delivery cost of product would put hundreds of our most serviceable industries on the financial rocks.
2. A business man or a business industry that has been giving usthirty cents in manufacturing costfor ourfifteen cents in cashis certainly deserving not only of a hearing but of a vigorous, robust, militant support.
That the periodical publishers of this country are doing just that thing—have been doing it for the past twelve to twenty years—no honest periodical reader who is at all familiar with the cost of production will attempt to deny.
That is sufficient reason for presenting here the “Exhibit E” of the publishers:
We point to the history of deficits in the Postoffice Department since 1879, when the pound rate of payment was established for second-class matter. The question at the head of this exhibit is answered by the successive changes in the size of the deficit, compared with coincident changes in the volume of second-class mail.It will be seen that the largest percentage of deficit in the past 40 years occurredbeforethe pound rate of 2 cents was, in 1879, established for second-classmatter; that the percentage of deficit decreased with great rapidity as soon as second-class matter, under the stimulus of the new pound rate, began to increase rapidly; that this decrease in the deficitwas accelerated after the second-class rate was lowered, in 1885, to thepresent rate of 1 cent a pound, and after second-class matter had increased beyond any figure hitherto dreamed of; that the decrease in percentage of deficit continued, coincidently with the increase in volume of second-class mail, until 1902, when large appropriations began for rural free delivery service. Then deficits began to grow as the specified loss on rural free delivery grew. In the last fiscal year, 1910, when the rural free delivery loss remained nearly stationary, as against 1909, the deficit decreased by approximately $11,500,000 to the lowest percentage but one in 27 years, although in this same year second-class matter madethe largest absolute gain ever known, amounting to 98,000,000 pounds more than in 1909.We submit that so many coincidences, taken over a whole generation, and observed in relation tothe enormous production of profitable first-class postage through magazine advertising, raisethe strongest presumption thatthe larger the volume of second-class mail becomes the more fully the postoffice plant is worked to its capacity in carrying newspapers and periodicals and the first and third class mail their advertising engenders, andthe smaller becomes the deficit, other things being equal.The other thing that is not equal is the new expenditures, unprofitable in the postoffice balance sheets for rural free delivery. According to the Postmaster General’s report there is in 1910 a surplus of over $23,000,000 outside the specific loss on rural free delivery. A chief reason why the Postoffice Department has this $29,000,000 to lose on rural free delivery is that periodical advertising, and the enormous postal business it generates, has long ago extinguished the deficit and given the huge surplus to spend for abeneficentbut financially unprofitable purpose.But one thing is proved beyond any shadow of doubt by this history of decreasing postoffice deficits and coincident increases in second-class mail, and that is,that the deficit can be reduced with an ever-increasing body of second-class mail, carried at one cent a pound. It can be, because the record shows it was.Below is a fuller history of postoffice deficits and second-class increases:THE FACTS AS TO DEFICITS AND SECOND-CLASS MATTER.The annual reports of the Postmaster General are the authority for the following figures:In the year 1870 there was a deficit in the operations of the United States Postoffice Department of 21.4 per cent of its turnover.In 1879 there was passed the act that put second-class matter on a pound-payment basis. An immediate increase in second-class matter began.In 1880 there was a deficit in the postoffice operations of only 9.6 per cent of its business.In 1885 was passed the law that made the rate for second-class matter 1 cent a pound, which still further increased second-class mail. It trebled in the decade preceding 1890.In 1890 the deficit in the operations of the Postoffice Department was 8.8 per cent.The next decade brought a much larger increase in second-class matter than any previous 10 years—from 174,053,910 pounds in 1890 to 382,538,999 pounds in 1900.The deficit in the postoffice operations in the year 1900 was 5.2 per cent of its business.In the prosperous years following 1900 the increase of second-class matter was stupendous; from 382,538,999 pounds in 1900 to 488,246,903 pounds in 1902, only two years.The increase of advertising in the magazines was even greater than the increase in second-class matter.These years brought the great forward movement inthe production of low priced but well edited magazines, made possible by large advertising incomes, and also in the increase in circulation byextensive combination book offers, and so-called “clubbing” arrangements, by which the subscriber could purchase three or more magazines together at a lower price than the aggregate of their list prices.In 1901 there was a deficit in the postoffice operations of only3.5 per cent of its business.In 1902 the deficit for the postoffice operations was2.4 per cent, the smallest percentage of deficit in 18 years and the smallest but two in 40 years.RURAL FREE DELIVERY STEPS IN.But in this year is seen for the first time, in important proportions, a new item of expense, $4,000,000 for rural free delivery. Our government hadwisely and beneficentlyextended the service of the postoffice to farmers in isolated communities, regardless of the expense of so doing. The report of the Postmaster General for 1902 says: “It will be seen that had it not been for the large expenditure on account of rural free delivery,the receipts would have exceeded the expenditures by upward of $1,000,000.”It will be clear, from these figures, which are taken from the reports of the Postmaster General, that beginning with the advent of the second-class pound-rate system,the deficit of the postoffice has steadily declined, the rate of decrease being always coincident with the expansion of circulation and advertising of periodicals, until in 1902 there was a substantial surplus, which the governmentwisely saw fit to use for a purpose not related to the needs of magazines and periodicals or to their expansion.A REAL SURPLUS OF OVER $74,000,000 IN NINE YEARS.Since 1902 there hasalways been a surplusin the operations of the Postoffice Department, outside of the money the Government has seen fit to expend for rural free delivery, (wisely, and otherwise wastefully.) In the present year, 1910, the report of the Postmaster General shows asurplusof over $23,000,000 outside the loss on the rural free delivery service of $29,000,000. The years 1902 to 1910 have each shown a surplus in the postoffice profit and loss account, the nine years aggregating over $74,000,000, outside the actual loss on the rural free delivery system.How enormously second-class mail aids the department’s finances by originatingprofitable first-class postage can be appreciated by referring to the specific examples in Exhibit F.It should be borne in mind that the turning of large deficits into actual surpluses, which has come coincidently with the expansion of second-class mail, of circulation pushing, and of advertising, has come inspite of an enormous expansion in governmental mail, carried free, and Congressional mail, franked, which has not been credited to the postoffice at all in calculating the actual surplus shown above.
We point to the history of deficits in the Postoffice Department since 1879, when the pound rate of payment was established for second-class matter. The question at the head of this exhibit is answered by the successive changes in the size of the deficit, compared with coincident changes in the volume of second-class mail.
It will be seen that the largest percentage of deficit in the past 40 years occurredbeforethe pound rate of 2 cents was, in 1879, established for second-classmatter; that the percentage of deficit decreased with great rapidity as soon as second-class matter, under the stimulus of the new pound rate, began to increase rapidly; that this decrease in the deficitwas accelerated after the second-class rate was lowered, in 1885, to thepresent rate of 1 cent a pound, and after second-class matter had increased beyond any figure hitherto dreamed of; that the decrease in percentage of deficit continued, coincidently with the increase in volume of second-class mail, until 1902, when large appropriations began for rural free delivery service. Then deficits began to grow as the specified loss on rural free delivery grew. In the last fiscal year, 1910, when the rural free delivery loss remained nearly stationary, as against 1909, the deficit decreased by approximately $11,500,000 to the lowest percentage but one in 27 years, although in this same year second-class matter madethe largest absolute gain ever known, amounting to 98,000,000 pounds more than in 1909.
We submit that so many coincidences, taken over a whole generation, and observed in relation tothe enormous production of profitable first-class postage through magazine advertising, raisethe strongest presumption thatthe larger the volume of second-class mail becomes the more fully the postoffice plant is worked to its capacity in carrying newspapers and periodicals and the first and third class mail their advertising engenders, andthe smaller becomes the deficit, other things being equal.
The other thing that is not equal is the new expenditures, unprofitable in the postoffice balance sheets for rural free delivery. According to the Postmaster General’s report there is in 1910 a surplus of over $23,000,000 outside the specific loss on rural free delivery. A chief reason why the Postoffice Department has this $29,000,000 to lose on rural free delivery is that periodical advertising, and the enormous postal business it generates, has long ago extinguished the deficit and given the huge surplus to spend for abeneficentbut financially unprofitable purpose.
But one thing is proved beyond any shadow of doubt by this history of decreasing postoffice deficits and coincident increases in second-class mail, and that is,that the deficit can be reduced with an ever-increasing body of second-class mail, carried at one cent a pound. It can be, because the record shows it was.
Below is a fuller history of postoffice deficits and second-class increases:
THE FACTS AS TO DEFICITS AND SECOND-CLASS MATTER.
The annual reports of the Postmaster General are the authority for the following figures:
In the year 1870 there was a deficit in the operations of the United States Postoffice Department of 21.4 per cent of its turnover.
In 1879 there was passed the act that put second-class matter on a pound-payment basis. An immediate increase in second-class matter began.
In 1880 there was a deficit in the postoffice operations of only 9.6 per cent of its business.
In 1885 was passed the law that made the rate for second-class matter 1 cent a pound, which still further increased second-class mail. It trebled in the decade preceding 1890.
In 1890 the deficit in the operations of the Postoffice Department was 8.8 per cent.
The next decade brought a much larger increase in second-class matter than any previous 10 years—from 174,053,910 pounds in 1890 to 382,538,999 pounds in 1900.
The deficit in the postoffice operations in the year 1900 was 5.2 per cent of its business.
In the prosperous years following 1900 the increase of second-class matter was stupendous; from 382,538,999 pounds in 1900 to 488,246,903 pounds in 1902, only two years.The increase of advertising in the magazines was even greater than the increase in second-class matter.These years brought the great forward movement inthe production of low priced but well edited magazines, made possible by large advertising incomes, and also in the increase in circulation byextensive combination book offers, and so-called “clubbing” arrangements, by which the subscriber could purchase three or more magazines together at a lower price than the aggregate of their list prices.
In 1901 there was a deficit in the postoffice operations of only3.5 per cent of its business.
In 1902 the deficit for the postoffice operations was2.4 per cent, the smallest percentage of deficit in 18 years and the smallest but two in 40 years.
RURAL FREE DELIVERY STEPS IN.
But in this year is seen for the first time, in important proportions, a new item of expense, $4,000,000 for rural free delivery. Our government hadwisely and beneficentlyextended the service of the postoffice to farmers in isolated communities, regardless of the expense of so doing. The report of the Postmaster General for 1902 says: “It will be seen that had it not been for the large expenditure on account of rural free delivery,the receipts would have exceeded the expenditures by upward of $1,000,000.”
It will be clear, from these figures, which are taken from the reports of the Postmaster General, that beginning with the advent of the second-class pound-rate system,the deficit of the postoffice has steadily declined, the rate of decrease being always coincident with the expansion of circulation and advertising of periodicals, until in 1902 there was a substantial surplus, which the governmentwisely saw fit to use for a purpose not related to the needs of magazines and periodicals or to their expansion.
A REAL SURPLUS OF OVER $74,000,000 IN NINE YEARS.
Since 1902 there hasalways been a surplusin the operations of the Postoffice Department, outside of the money the Government has seen fit to expend for rural free delivery, (wisely, and otherwise wastefully.) In the present year, 1910, the report of the Postmaster General shows asurplusof over $23,000,000 outside the loss on the rural free delivery service of $29,000,000. The years 1902 to 1910 have each shown a surplus in the postoffice profit and loss account, the nine years aggregating over $74,000,000, outside the actual loss on the rural free delivery system.
How enormously second-class mail aids the department’s finances by originatingprofitable first-class postage can be appreciated by referring to the specific examples in Exhibit F.
It should be borne in mind that the turning of large deficits into actual surpluses, which has come coincidently with the expansion of second-class mail, of circulation pushing, and of advertising, has come inspite of an enormous expansion in governmental mail, carried free, and Congressional mail, franked, which has not been credited to the postoffice at all in calculating the actual surplus shown above.
Next the publishers come forward with “Exhibit F.” Their “Exhibit F” is not merely an “exhibit.” It is anexhibition, with a three-ring circus, a menagerie and moving pictures as a “side.” Candidly, I am of the opinion that it was this “Exhibit F” of the publishers which induced our friend, the Postmaster General, to loosen the clutch on his mental gear.
Of course, it is possible Mr. Hitchcock did not, nor has not, read this “F” of the publishers. If such a misfortune has cast its shadow across his promising career, I regret it.
“Why?”
Well, to anyone anxiously interested in dissipating, or removing, the federal postoffice “deficit,” the reading of the publishers’ “F” should be most entertaining.
That F of the publishers most certainly presents some facts which any man, unless he is a fool, as some descriptive artist has appropriately put it, in an “elaborate, broad, beautiful and comprehensive sense,” must appreciate.
Senator Owen introduced “Exhibit F” of the publishers in necessarily, and of course, dignified form—a form in keeping with the exalted position he holds and worthily fills. Your uncle on the ladder, however, is not, as you may possibly have already discovered, restrained by any codede luxeas to his forms of speech or as to theiredge.
The publishers in their Exhibit “F” show and, as I have said,show conclusively, that the advertising pages in periodicals (newspapers or other), arethe pages which support—which pay the bills—of the Postoffice Department of these United States.
I would ask the reader to keep that last statement in mind, for, in spite of the Postmaster General’s voluminous, cushion-tired conversation and automatic comptometer figuring, the publishers furnish ample evidence in proof that the statement just made is safe and away inside the truth.
Oh, yes, of course, I remember that Solomon or some other wise man of ancient times has said “all men are liars.” That was possibly, even probably, true of the men of his day. It may also be admitted without prejudice, I trust, to either party to this case, that there is a numerous body of trousered liars scattered in and along the various walks of life even at this late date. So, there appears to be no valid reason nor grounds to question the veracity of Solomon, or whoever the ancient witness was, when he testified, to the best of his knowledge and belief, that all men are prevaricators. However, I desire in this connection to have the reader understand that The Man on the Ladder is of the opinion there are a few men on earth now, whatever the condition and proclivities of their remote ancestors may have been, who have an ingrown desire or predisposition to tell the truth.
This view of the genushomois warranted, if indeed not supported, by the plainly and frequently observed fact that in almost every recorded instance where the truth serves a purpose better than a lie, the truth gets into the testimony.
The Man on the Ladder also believes there are men—bunches of men—in this our day who will tell us the truthwhether they can afford to do so or not.
I have given this “aside,” if the reader will kindly so consider it, to the end of calling to his attention two points, namely:
First, There are probably just as many truth tellers, likewiseliars, in the world today as there were in olden times.
Second, There is probably just as high a moral code—just as high a standard and practice of veracity—among the periodical publishers of this country as there is among officials of the Federal Postoffice Department.
I am of opinion that few, indeed, among my readers will be found to question the fairness of that statement. Especially will they not question it when they take into consideration the factthat pages of the publishers’ testimony were under oath, or jurat.
Now, the Postmaster General’s whole talk—his whole word-splutter—was, it seems, to create an impression that the government was losing millions annuallybecause of the large amount of advertising matter distributed by magazines and other periodicals.
On the other hand, the publishers in their “Exhibit F,” and elsewhere, try to show, and in the writer’s opiniondoshow quite conclusively and dependably, that the excess of expenditure over receipts in the Postoffice Department would betwo to four times greater than it now is were it not for the first, third and fourth class revenues resulting directly from those advertising pages in our periodical literature.
Before giving these publishers a chance to tell the truth, as presented in their “Exhibit F,” I desire to make a few remarks about the point under consideration—the profits to thegovernment from periodical advertising.
The publishers present the evidence of their counting-rooms—theinsidetestimony. I desire to present some outside testimony.
I may present it in an awkward, raw way, but I have a conceit that the “jury” will give it consideration.
Three months ago, there was a “party at our house.” No, it was not a bridge party. Mrs. M. On The L. has, in my visual range, I can here assure you, many commendable virtues—meritorious qualities and qualifications. Likewise, she has some faults. The latter I cannot, if the dove of peace is to continue perching on our domicile lodge pole, mention here. I may, however, say with entire safety, that “bridge” and alleged similar feminine amusements are not among them.
The party to which I advert was a “tea.” The guests were six,—Mrs. M. On The L. serving. The guests not only had “the run” of the house, but theytook possession of it. I stuck to my “den” until it was invaded and then—well, then, my dear trousered reader, I did precisely what you would have done. I backed off—I surrendered.
“What was the result?”
In this particular case, the chief feature of the result was that these seven women,in less than ten minutes, had appropriated every copy of all the latest, and some a month or more old, of the magazines and weeklies about my work-shop. They also annexed me. I “just had to go downstairs and have a cup of tea with them.” Although I am not entrancingly fond of tea, I did exactly what you would have done. I went. Necessarily, I had to be good. I was good. I said—as near as I knew how—the things that were proper to say and as near the proper time as I could. That is, I said little and listened much.
It is of what I heard—and afterward learned—I wish here to speak. I wish to speak of it because it fits like a glove to the point the publishers make in their “Exhibit F,” which is to follow.
While the hostess was preparing and spreading luncheon—a necessary concomitant of all “teas,” other than mentioned in novels—the six guests scanned the magazines and talked magazines. From their conversation it appeared that five of the six took, either by subscription or news-stand purchase, one or two monthly magazines “regularly.” Whether the ladiesreadthem or not was not made clear to me. One of them did make mention of two “splendid stories”—“The Ne’er do Well,” by Rex Beach, and, at the time of the “tea,” appearing, in serial, in one of the monthlies. The other was a short story entitled “The Quitters,” which, the lady stated, had appeared in one of the magazines some time previous.
Now, so far as I can recall, the reference made by this one of the six ladies was the only mention made of the “literary” features of the magazines they had read or to such features of those they were examining. There was considerable talk and attention given to the body illustrations.
In calling such stories as the lady mentioned “literary” I presume apologies are due the Penrose-Overstreet Commission. While both the stories are “brand-new,” are well written, each teaching a lesson—have, in short, all the essential elements of “currency and periodicity”—yet that commission, in the anxious interest it displayed to secure “a general exclusion act” against fiction in periodicals, would, possibly, see nothing of literary merit in either of the stories the lady mentioned.
I shall, however, offer no apologies to the commission for classingthe two stories as literature and of exemplary currency. On a previous page I have given my reasons for differing from the commission on its strictures on current fiction as run in our standard monthlies and weeklies. The lady’s expressed opinion of the two stories is another reason for differing from that expressed by the commission. In my judgment, the lady who spoke has a broader, juster and far more comprehending knowledge of literature—of its merits and demerits, whether fiction, historical, biographical or classic—than has any member of that commission.
But to return to our tea party. Those six ladies scanned and thumbed through my magazines. As said, there was comparatively little talk or comment about the body-matter of the periodicals. But those women—all married, five of them mothers, two of them (three, counting the hostess), grandmothers—gave fullythree-fourths of their time to the advertising pages.
But that is not all. Their scanning of the advertising pages of those periodicals developed some business action. The business talk started when one lady called attention to the “ad” of a military school in a town in Wisconsin, “where Thomas attends,” Thomas being her son. It developed that the lady seated next to her had a son Charles whom it was desired to start in some preparatory school in the fall. Another matron had a daughter she desired to have take a course at some school for girls. Both of the ladies with candidates for preparatory courses, however, were of the opinion that all the “good schools” appeared to be in the East and each would prefer to send her son or daughter to some school nearer home. To this opinion the mother of the boy attending the Wisconsin school earnestly protested.
“We have just as good preparatory schools, colleges and universities in the West as they have in the East,” she declared. “My boy is doing splendidly at the——, Wisconsin. He has been there two terms now. If you don’t want to send Charles to a military school, there are a score or more of excellent schools for either boys or girls in the West and South—some of them right near us, too. Just look here!”——
And then began a scurrying through the school “ad” pages of three or four of the magazines for the names and locations of preparatory schools. The advertisements of a number were found.
“Take the names and addresses and write all of them for their catalogues or prospectuses or pamphlets, giving the courses of study that pupils may take, the advantages they offer and other information. That’s what I did before deciding where to send Thomas. I wrote twenty-two different military schools in the country and got a prompt reply from each of them. In fact some of them wrote mefour or five times, besides sending their little printed books which gave their courses of study and set forth the special advantages their students enjoyed.”
Of course, it was Thomas’ mother who spoke. Her suggestion, however, gripped the rails at once. The two matrons with children to place in preparatory schools asked for pencil and paper. I relieved them of the immediate labor of writing out their lists, by gallantly inviting them to take home with them such of the magazines as they thought would serve their purpose, and, as they were near neighbors, they could scan them at their leisure and address directly from the advertisements. I lost three of my favorite magazines on my tender.
“This has no bearing on the point!” Eh? Well, let us see about that.
Of course, I do not know what the mothers of that son and daughter who were to be started in preparatory school work did. It is safe to presume however, that they adopted the plan suggested by Thomas’ mother. We know what she did. At any rate we have her own statement of the course she pursued, and there can be advanced no valid reason for doubting her word. Besides, as she is our “next-door” neighbor, I have made, within the month, special inquiry of her as to what she did. I found that she had kept the catalogues of the schools to which she had written and had carefully “filed” in atwined package, as a careful housekeeper usually files things, every letter she had received from the schools.
More than that: She wrote nine of the schools a second letter and three of them, she wrotefour times. To the Wisconsin school to which she finally intrusted the training and instruction of her son she wrotesix times.
Now let us see what revenue the federal postal fundactuallyreceived from this one mother in her efforts to place her boy in a good, safe school.
First the mother herself wrote forty-five letters. On these the Postoffice Department collected 90 cents.
Second, her “twine file” shows that, all told, she had received from the twenty-two schools written to, a total of 163 letters. On these the government collected $3.26.
Third, the catalogues sent her were of various sizes. Their carriage charge, at third-class rates, I think would range from two to six cents or more. Putting the average at only three cents, which in my judgment is low, the government collected for their carriage 66 cents.
Fourth, thirteen of the schools, either not knowing her boy had been matriculated or thinking she might have other boys “comin’ on” to preparatory school age, sent her their catalogues for the following year—another 39 cents.
Add those four items and you will readily ascertain that the government received $5.21 in revenue from the efforts of Thomas’ mother to select a school for him—a school that would give him military training and discipline, as well as academic instruction in selected studies.
Her course of action was prompted entirely by the school advertisements she saw in two magazines.
How many other mothers and fathers were influenced to similar action by the three or four school “ad” pages in those two magazines I do not know. There must, however, have been many, I take it, otherwise the schools and preparatory colleges would not persist in advertising so extensively, year after year, during the summer months, in our high-class monthly and weekly periodicals.
The two magazines from which Thomas’ mother got her school address weighed a little under a pound each. If they reached her by mail, the government got only about two cents for their carriage and delivery, which was ample pay—$20.00 a ton—for the service. But supposing Mr. Hitchcock’s wild figures were correct—that it cost the government 18 cents to deliver those two magazines to that mother—a rate of $180.00 per ton. Of course, no man could so suppose unless he stood on his head in one corner of a room and figured results as the square of the distance at which things appeared to him, or chanced to be one of those “blessed” mortals prenatally endowed with what may be called mental strabismus. But for thesake of the argument, let us suppose that it did cost the government 18 cents to deliver those two magazines to Thomas’ mother; let us admit that that falsehood is fact, that that foolishness is sense. Then what?
A magazine weighing one pound and printed on the grade of paper used by our high-class periodicals will count 250 or more pages. Four pages of school “ads,” therefore, would count for aboutone-fourth of one ounce.
Even at Mr. Hitchcock’s absurd figure of nine cents a pound, the cost to the government of carrying those four pages of school advertisements in each of two monthly magazines to the mother of Thomaswas less than four-fifths of one cent.
Do you grasp the point?
Remember, Mr. Hitchcock has separated himself from much talk to show to a doubting public that it isthe advertising pages of periodicals which over-burden the postal service and are responsible, largely, for the alleged “deficit.”
I say “alleged” deficit. I say so, because it is not, and never was, a deficitde facto. I shall later give my reasons for so saying—shall show that this much talked of deficit in the Postoffice Department’s revenues isquasionly—a mere matter of accounting, and bad accounting at that.
But here we are considering the cost to the government of carrying and deliveringadvertising pagesto the reading public of this Nation. Especially are we considering the transaction between the government and the mother of Thomas—a transaction induced and promoted by eight pages of advertising—four pages in each of two magazines.
As just stated, it cost the governmentless than four-fifths of one cent, even if we rate the carriage and delivery cost at Postmaster General Hitchcock’s absurd figure of nine cents a pound, to deliver those eight pages of school advertisement to Thomas’ mother. Even the delivery of thecompletemagazines which printed those advertising pages would, at Mr. Hitchcock’s own figures, cost the government only about 18 cents. Let’s admit it all—the worst of it, and the worst possible construction that the worst will stand. Then how does the government stand in relation to the resultant transaction—the transaction induced by those eight pages of advertising?
It cost the government 18 cents, according to Mr. Hitchcock’s method of hurdle estimating, to deliver those two magazines to Thomas’ mother. Well, let it go at that. The government is out, then, 16 cents, the publisher having paid in 2 cents at the present pound rate for mail carriage and delivery.
On the other hand, those two magazines each carried four pages of school “ads.” Those “ads” start Thomas’ mother into a canvass of the schools by correspondence. The result of that canvass, as previously shown, turned into the government’s treasurya gross revenue of$5.21 for postage stamps to cover the first and third-class business resulting.
The government, then, is $5.05 ahead so far asgrossreceipts andgrossrevenues are concerned, and it is ahead that sum, in the specific transaction under consideration,solely and only because of those eight pages of school advertisements printed in the two magazines.
Is that not a fair—a just—statement?
As Mr. Hitchcock states that there is a large profit to the government for the stamps sold and as that $5.21 wasall for stamps, then those eight pages of advertisements and Thomas’ mother must have turned into the postal fund a handsomenetprofit on the service rendered by the Postoffice Department.
Now, I desire to return to our “tea.” Two other “business” actions developed which serve to prove the statement made on a previous page, namely:It is the advertising pages of our periodicals which yield the largest revenue to the government for the postal service it renders.
The first of the two postal revenue-producers came up as we sat at luncheon. Each of the ladies had a magazine or weekly in hand. There was as much talking as eating in progress, or more. I presume that is the proper procedure or practice at “tea” luncheons. I am not a competent authority on “tea” proprieties.
One of the ladies “had the floor,” so to speak, and expatiated eloquently and at length on the merits of an electrically heated flat-iron or sad-iron, an advertisement of which she had found in the magazine she was scanning—a cloth smoother she had had in use for some three months. Three of the other matrons were wired—that is, their homes were electrically lighted. The others were getting theirdomiciliary illumination from what is vulgarly designated as the “Chicago Gas Trust,” at 85 cents per.
“Results?” Three of the assembled party desired to write for “full particulars” about that flat-iron at once.
My boss furnished paper, envelopes, pens and ink. My assigned duty in this business transaction was both simple and secondary. The bossorderedme to go over to the drug store, buy the stamps and mail those three letters.
I did so.
The government got six cents postal revenue frommeon that sad-iron “ad.” What further revenue was gleaned from the correspondence between the three ladies and the flat-iron manufacturer I know not.
It took me a long time to reach that drug-store—a short block away—buy the stamps, “lick ’em,” stick them on the envelopes and drop those three letters into the mail-box just outside the druggist’s door. At any rate, the ladies so informed me when I got back. They did it politely, kindly, but veryplainly. Not wishing to scarify their feelings by admitting that I had purposely loitered because of an inherent or pre-natal dislike of teas, I did what I thought was the proper thing to do under the stress of impinging circumstances—I lied like a gentleman. I told the ladies that the druggist happened to be out of two-cent stamps and had sent out for them—sent to another drug store for them.
“How unfortunate!” exclaimed one of the party. “We want a lot more stamps. We have each written for a sample of these new biscuits. We have to enclose ten cents in stamps and the letters will have to be stamped. That’s eighty-four cents in stamps and we want to get the letters into the mail tonight.”
Then I was shown the advertisement of the desired “biscuits.” In the good old summer time of our earthly residence, “when life and love were young,” we called such mercantile pastry “crackers.” Mother baked all the biscuits we then ate, or somebody else’s mother baked them. Of course, sometimes Mary, Susie, Annie, Jane or another of the dear girls learned the trick and could “bake as good as mother.” Then she baked the biscuits. And theywerebiscuits. Now, everycrackeris a biscuit, and every biscuit one gets smells and tastes of the bakeshop where it was foundried.
But that is entirely aside from our subject. The “ad”—a full page—set forth the super-excellence of some recently invented or devised cracker—“biscuit,” if you prefer so to call it. It was an attractively designed and well-written “ad.” The advertiser offered to send a regular-size package of the “biscuits” to anyone on receipt of ten cents in stamps—“enough to cover the postage”—and the name of the grocer with whom the sender of the stamps traded. That, in brief, was the “ad” offer, and each of the ladies wanted those biscuits—my boss as anxious to sample them as any of the others. On a corner of the luncheon table in symmetrical, pyramidal array, was 84 cents in miscellaneous change.
Before it came my turn to speak, Mrs. M. On The L. gave me a scrutinizing look—a censorious look—a look that said, “I know where you have been,” and took the floor. She did not rise in taking it either.
“Oh, he can get the stamps. Take that change and these letters. You can go to some other drug store and get the stamps. Put ten cents in stamps in each envelope and then seal and mail the letters.”
That’s the speech the boss made.
I should be ashamed to admit it, but I am not. There are limits to the endurance of even such a temperate-zone nature as that of the writer. The boss’ speech reached the limit. My patriotism was set all awry. Even my earnest desire to reduce the “deficit” in the postal service was, for the moment, forgotten—was submerged.
I took the 84 cents those friendly ladies had pooled on “biscuits” and the seven unsealed letters, assuring them I would certainly find the stamps. I then went up to my den, unlocked a drawer of my desk, found the stamps, made the enclosures, stamped and sealed the envelopes, and then came down and passed out on my assigned errand. I got back just as the “party” was donning its hat to depart for its several homes, assured it that its orders had been carried out, and, by direction of the boss, escorted home one of its members who had some distance to walk.
Now, I think I did my whole duty to that tea-party, andmorethan my duty to reduce the postal “deficit.”
I trust the “dear reader” will not have concluded or even thought that I am trying to be funny or humorous, nor even ludicrous. I have been writing ofactualoccurrences, and writing thefacts, too, ofthose occurrences, as nearly as I can recall them after an interval ofless than three months. I introduce thede factohappenings at our “tea party” here because theyapply—because they illustrate, they evidence, theyprovethat the advertising pages of our periodicalsare the pages which produce a large part, if indeed, not the larger part of our postal service revenues.
But we must look after our “biscuits” a little further.
The seven women at that tea party spent 84 cents for stamps to get a sample of those crackers. Fourteen cents of these stamps went to cancellation on the letters they mailed. The other 70 cents went to cancellation on the cracker packages which the cracker inventor sent them—cancelled at the fourth-class rate—cancelled at the postal carriage rate of sixteen cents a pound.
Is that all? No it is not all. It is only the first link in apostal revenueproducing chain.
The manufacturer of that cracker or biscuit, as you may choose to call it, wrote each of those seven ladies a neat letter of thanks, and neatly giving a further boost to the biscuit. I know this because I have seen the seven letters—all “stock form” letters.
That contributed 14 cents more in postage stamps for cancellation.
Three of the ladies heard from that cracker bakerfour times. Their grocers probably had not put the cracker in stock. My boss got a second letter from the baker.
That contributed 20 cents more in postage stamps for cancellation.
The advertiser sent by mail to each of the seven grocers the ladies had named a sample package of the “biscuits” and a letter naming the local grocery jobber or jobbers through whom stock could be had, the jobber’s price of it, etc.
That contributed 84 cents more in postage stamps for cancellation.
Nor is that all. My boss’ grocer got three letters from that cracker baker and a visit from a salesman of a local jobber before he “stocked.” If the grocers named by the other six ladies were similarly honored then the builder of those biscuits must have written the seven grocers whom the tea party ladies had named fourteen letters in addition to the first one.
That contributed 28 cents more in postage stamps for cancellation.
Now let us figure up—or down—how one tea party of seven (I was the working or “worked” member, so am not to be counted in), and a one page “ad” stands in account with the postal revenues.
The magazine carrying the cracker “ad” weighs about a pound. The single “ad” page cannot possibly weigh more thanthree-fiftieths of one ounce. To carry and deliver that one “ad” page the cost to the government, then, even at Mr. Hitchcock’s extension-ladder rate of 9 cents a pound, would be aboutone-thirtieth of one cent.
But as we did in the case of the school advertisements previously mentioned, let’s give our Postmaster General the whole “hullin’ uv beans.” Let us credit the government with Mr. Hitchcock’s alleged cost of carrying that magazine to that tea party—nine cents.
Per contra, the government must give that “ad” page credit for producing stamp cancellations to the amount of $2.30.
Figure it out yourself and see if that is not theactualshowing of the ledger on this account of the Postoffice Department with that one “ad” page and those seven tea party women.
That, I believe, is fair and sufficient evidence from the outside—from the field—in support of the facts which the publishers present in their “Exhibit F,” and which I shall here reprint: