My Dear Senator:—Observing that the periodical publishers in their opposition to the pending provision increasing postage on second-class mail matter frequently refer to the low rate of one-fourth cent per pound charged by the Dominion of Canada on newspapers and periodicals, I think it well to point out the fact that while this exceptionally low rate does prevail in that country because of the peculiar conditions there, European countries, so far as our information goes, charge a higher rate than the United States, notwithstanding theirmuch smaller areas. The rates charged by Great Britain, Germany, and France are considerably higher than the rate provided for in the bill now pending in the Senate. I inclose herewith a memorandum giving such information as we have regarding the postage rates charged on newspapers and periodicals by European countries.Yours, very truly,Frank H. Hitchcock,Postmaster General.
My Dear Senator:—Observing that the periodical publishers in their opposition to the pending provision increasing postage on second-class mail matter frequently refer to the low rate of one-fourth cent per pound charged by the Dominion of Canada on newspapers and periodicals, I think it well to point out the fact that while this exceptionally low rate does prevail in that country because of the peculiar conditions there, European countries, so far as our information goes, charge a higher rate than the United States, notwithstanding theirmuch smaller areas. The rates charged by Great Britain, Germany, and France are considerably higher than the rate provided for in the bill now pending in the Senate. I inclose herewith a memorandum giving such information as we have regarding the postage rates charged on newspapers and periodicals by European countries.
Yours, very truly,
Frank H. Hitchcock,Postmaster General.
Postage rate, in cents per pound, on newspapers and periodicals in European countries.Cents.Great Britain (one forty-first of the area of the United States), 1 cent a copy for local delivery, but for general distribution by parcels post in quantities, 6 cents for the first pound and 2 cents for each additional pound up to 11 pounds.Germany (one-seventeenth of the area of the United States)4⅘France (one-seventeenth of the area of the United States)4Italy (one thirty-third of the area of the United States):Daily newspapers1⅛Other publications2Holland (one two-hundred-and-eighty-fourth of the area of the United States)1⅘Belgium (one three-hundred-and-eighteenth of the area of the United States)1⅕Under the provisions of the International Postal Convention, newspapers and periodicals are mailed by all the signatory parties at the uniform rate of 1 cent for each 2 ounces or fraction thereof—practically, 8 cents per pound.
Postage rate, in cents per pound, on newspapers and periodicals in European countries.
Under the provisions of the International Postal Convention, newspapers and periodicals are mailed by all the signatory parties at the uniform rate of 1 cent for each 2 ounces or fraction thereof—practically, 8 cents per pound.
Postmaster General Hitchcock in his letter, submitted under date of February 14, 1911, quotes some publisher (name not mentioned), as saying that “magazine publishers receivegrossincomes as high as $6,000,000 in a single year” … “that one of them, according to his own statement, realizes a net profit of $1,000,000 annually” … another, “the principal owner of two great magazines, says that hisgrossincome is more than $6,000,000 a year;” of another “that his magazine yields more than 10% profit on a capitalization of $10,000,000,” etc., etc.
Beyond stating that the foregoing declarations were made by the “President of one of the leading magazine publishing companies of New York city,” Mr. Hitchcock sayeth not, save as he quotes (see seventh paragraph of the Hitchcock letter), this President as saying what Mr. Hitchcock says he said. The Postmaster General does not name this “President.”
Regretting this oversight of our Postmaster General very much, I would like to know whether or not this “President” is the real,genuine article of president, or is merely one of these “phoney” presidents who laboriously support the honors of the corporate title and vote three shares of stock, usuallygivenby the promoters of an organization for the “influence” of an honored name in starting the wheels to revolve.
I mean by this that it would beinformationto thousands of Mr. Hitchcock’s readers, as well as to thousands of publishers and printers,and numerous millions of American citizens, had he, Mr. Hitchcock, told them whether this “President” he quotes so liberally, likewise confidently and confidingly, is a real, live-wire president, active in the management of his periodical, and, therefore, fully informed as to its business, expenditures, profits, etc., etc., or, on the other hand, whether or not he is merely a corporation stool-bird for the promotion of a publication enterprise through selling the stock of the concern to the E. Z.-Mark investing public.
The quotations which our Postmaster General makes from this publisher “President” sound to me with quite a familiartang. They read a good bit like a promotion circular, like an “annual statement” which corporations and companies as well as individuals print and distribute to call attention to the prosperousfuturethey have in sight, incidentally invitinginvestmentfrom savings banks accounts, stocking hoardings, etc.
Nothing wrong about that method of “public bubbling” at all. Even banking institutions, national and state, sometimes resort to it. Occasionally, commercial houses have used it. So, also, has the Steel Corporation, when it wished its employes to chip in a few millions for “a personal interest.” Our friend, “Bet-You-a-Million-Gates,” used it to advantage in reorganizing the Louisville and Nashville system, and it is a practice now and again indulged in among our Napoleons of finance, as well as great captains in the industrial realm.
For this reason I cannot—until our Postmaster General further enlightens us regarding this publisher-president as to his personality, individuality and general business activity in and knowledge of, his own publication business,—say anything in adverse criticism of this “President” Mr Hitchcock quotes so liberally, likewise unctuously.
However, having been a periodical publisher myself, in a small way, I shall presume here to present a few figuresapproximatelyapplicable to larger periodical enterprises. Mr. Hitchcock has much to say aboutgrossreceipts,grossrevenues, and othergross. I shall present my estimate ofnet profits. For this purpose, I shall take a monthly periodical reputedly issuing 650,000 copies a month, each number weighing about one pound.
Now, let it be here distinctly understood by the reader that my figures, mostly estimates, are those of a man with experience only as a small periodical publisher, say of 50,000 a month, not 650,000.
Estimated income of the publisher of a standard monthly periodical distributing 650,000 copies monthly of average weight of one pound each, Mr. Hitchcock figures to be (see his letter), about $6,000,000. The gross annual receipts from subscriptions on a periodical issuing 650,000 copies per month, and retailing at 15 cents per copy, is less than $750,000. Such periodicals realize about 12½ cents each for subscribed copies and 8 cents net for copies delivered in bulk to newsdealers and agencies. The first item of expense the publisher incurs, therefore, is in the issue cost of production over what he receives for the copies issued. It is knowledge common to every periodical publisher, newspaper as well as magazine, that every subscriber as well as news-stand buyer of his periodical is asubsidized reader. Do you catch the import of that statement?
Did you ever think of that, Mr. Reader? Frankly I confess that I did not, until quite recently, when a large producer of trade journals and edition books, and likewise one of our largest manufacturing printers, pointed out the facts to me. His varied business interests are such that he must necessarily buy at the lowest market cost, must know to the fraction of a cent what those costs are—the cost of composition, of presswork, of ink, of color work, of covers, of binding, of cartage, of rail haulage, of distribution, etc., etc.
Well, this gentleman summoned me off the ladder, and “called” me in a way which made my landing somewhat abrupt, in order to tell me some things about periodical publishing which he had shrewdly, likewise correctly, guessed that I did not know.
Among the things he told me, not only told me but proved to me, was the one stated: that readers of periodicals get,in net mechanical cost, more than the publishers receive for the publication sold.
In proof of this he cited the 8-page dailies issued in cities of the second and third classes, and the 16 to 32-page dailies published inour metropolitan cities; also the great “Sunday Editions” issued by the latter, issues which run more largely to color andtonnagethan to news and literature. The former, (the dailies), my publisher friend pointed out, realize aboutsix-tenths of one cent a copy—a little less, if they do cartage for any considerable part of their local deliveries or pay rail haulage charges on outside deliveries. Of course, my tutor is speaking of news agents and carrier deliveries. On their regular subscribed issues publishers realize a little more. But the difference, when cost of wrapping and addressing is figured, is so trifling as not to be worth considering. It can be safely figured that the net price received by the publisher of a newspaper is six-tenths of one cent for the daily and about three and a half cents—probably nearer three cents—for the leviathan metropolitan Sunday edition.
Just here is where my publisher friend’s knowledge ofmarket costscame forth for my enlightenment and, I sincerely hope, for my reader’s as well. Having studied his business from the “stumpage” up, so to speak, he began with the cost of pulp wood timber, “of stumpage,” from the spruce forests of the north and farther north, the scattered linn or basswood of the east and southeast, and of the soft maple and cottonwood of the southeast and south. Then he told me of the prices paid the “lumber jacks” to fell and saw this pulp-wood; of the cost of hauling it by ox, mule or horsepower to the river “roll-way,” which river would carry it down to the pulp mill, or hauling it to the railroad loading station for rail carriage to the same point.
Nor did he do that only. He told me the price of the “web press roll” and of “flat-print” papers into which the wood pulp is made, paper stock on which is printed all our periodicals—both newspapers and monthly and weekly periodicals. Next he told me of the price of composition, (typesetting, as we used to call it), by the most modern methods, the linotype and the monotype machines. Then he talked of ink and presswork costs, of color work, folding, stitching and covering or binding; of the cost of wrapping, addressing, cartage, rail haulage and distribution. The result of the expert’s showing of thecostof raw material and of skilled and other labor in periodical publication, as the periodicals are printed and marketed today, was to the effect that the reader gets his daily, weekly or monthly publication, on an average,at less than half what it costs the publisher to produce it.
Further, it was conclusively shown to me, that the publisher’snetreceipts for a newspaper, magazine or other periodical is often but a third, sometimes less thana fourth, of the net cost to him of its production and distribution.
With this preliminary, we will now go back to our magazine of 650,000 monthly issue and Postmaster General Hitchcock’s estimate of its profits.
Postmaster General Hitchcock’s talk of “gross” receipts of $6,000,000 a year is ill advised. Let us see what must be charged off from that $6,000,000 before the publisher can count his profits.
First, we will figure the publisher’s loss on published copies. Taking only the flat cost of paper, ink and composition; of the cost of fine color and half-tone pages such as monthly periodicals must print; of cover designing, presswork, and binding, of wrapping and addressing, say 150,000 copies of the monthly issue to individual addresses, that being, approximately at least, the number of subscribed readers the publisher will have on a total issue of 650,000 copies. Next comes the cost of sacking his subscribed circulation and of bundling and wrapping, then of cartage to mail trains. The prominent periodical publisher not only delivers his subscribed listsackedto the mail car, but heroutesthe larger portion of it, the railway mail clerks having nothing to do with it save to dump it off at the designated stations. Then he must meet the carriage and delivery cost, about 1 cent a pound, or $20.00 a ton. All these I considerflatcosts of producing and delivering the publication. To this flat cost must be added the expenditures for contributing writers, for editors, proofreaders and special investigators (including travel and other expenses), stenographers, postage and stationery for a large correspondence, clerical, messenger and other administration service, rents, insurance, etc., etc. And, finally, the expenditures made in the way of commissions and premiums to work up a subscribed issue.
A monthly periodical of the size and character which Postmaster General Hitchcock has reference to—of the size and character to win its way to an issue of 650,000 copies a month—must cost its publisher not less, on an average, than 30 cents per copy, probably more. The subscribing reader pays 12½ cents per copy for it—pays directly to the publisher. The news stand buyer pays 15 cents a copy, but the publisher, after paying newsdealer and agency commissionson the latter sales, realizes but8 cents per copy. Here let us see how this publisher’s circulation-cost and receipts figure out. Six hundred and fifty thousand monthly issue figures to an issue of 7,800,000 copies for the year. At 30 cents’ cost of production, which is rather low than high, those copies cost the publisher to produce, to get readers for and to distribute, the annual total of $2,340,000. He realizes in return from subscription and news stand sales about as follows:
Thus it is clear that for an expenditure of $2,340,000 a year to produce and distribute his excellentlow-pricedperiodical to readers, the publisher gets in return only $705,000, thus standing a net loss of $1,635,000 on his mechanical output—no, on hisliterary and educational output. And, mark you, that $705,000 Mr. Hitchcock must, necessarily, have included in his “gross” receipts. How, then, is the publisher able to furnish his readers such literary and educational nourishment at so great a loss on production?
There is but one answer: The advertising carried by the periodical must recoup the loss on publication and yield the publisher whatever profit he may realize. Yet Mr. Hitchcock, in the profound profundity of his knowledge of periodical publishing, figures that the advertising receipts are clear profit to the publisher. True, he does, in one of his urgent letters to Senator Penrose, I believe it is, incidentally admit a possible maximum cost or expense of “fifteen per cent” in securing and printing the advertisements. “Fifteen per cent!”
Omitting all undigestible words, I shall merely say that Mr. Hitchcock’s fifteen per cent talk—about the cost of soliciting and printing advertising matter by any of our high-class periodicals, shows a knowledge of the subject nearly on the level of that of a cold-storage egg.
Why, fifteen per cent of the gross receipts for advertising by any of our high-class periodicals scarcely would meet—I doubt if in any such case it doesmeet—the expenditures made for skilled “layout”men and designers. Everyone knows that the advertising pages of any of our standard weekly and monthly periodicals areart pages. Peoplereadthe “ads” in these periodicals. They are largely attracted to them by their artistic arrangement, typographically and in design. It takesbrainsto make that arrangement, brains of finer fiber or better trained than the cold storage variety. The service of such brainscosts money. Who pays it?The publisher.And the publisher who gets the services of such brains at less than fifteen per cent of the “gross” charge for his advertising must, in these days, be a wonder in business acumen or a “pow’ful ’suadin’ boss,” as Rastus used to say, down on the Yazoo, years ago, when he took a job at twenty-five cents a day less than he had asked.
I say the peoplereadthese “ads” and, fearing I shall forget it later, I desire to interpolate here another thought: They are led to read them because of the artistic letterpress, the designing, the attractive phrasing, catchy wording, etc. They read them.YouandIread them. And—well, that is my point—my thought.
The “ads” in periodicals of the class of which we are speaking cover almost every field and domain of life—of human life—ofourlives. They tell us of the latest inventions and achievements in the mechanical and industrial world; of the latest improvements in the cultivation of the land; of the latest and best in “hen range” management and “run-way” poultry raising; of the latest achievements of Luther Burbank, or some other wizard in the domain of pomology; of kitchen and flower gardening; of how to cut down our gas bills; to make the ton of coal deliver more “duty”—more thermic B. T. U.’s—of the best new books and of bargain reprint editions of the best old ones; of where to get a cheap home, cheap acres around it and how to build and furnish a comfortable home cheaply; in fact, of an infinity of daily and hourly needs. So what is the use of my enumerating further? Every reader knows what those “ads” in our standard periodicals do for us. They enlighten, they inform, theyeducateus. And that is why we read them, and that is why we should continue to do so.
We will get back now to Mr. Hitchcock and his “wondrous ways” of figuring a publisher’s profits on the advertising he prints. Postmaster General Hitchcock appears to have ignored the fact I have already pointed out—ignored the fact that the publisher’s heaviestloss is on the printing and distribution end of his periodical, and thus is a charge against his advertising receipts.
Mr. Hitchcock, so far as I have been able to read him, furthermore ignores the important fact that advertisements are secured for a periodical largely by solicitation. Of course, the “Want,” “To Rent,” “For Sale” and similar small line “ads” come to newspapers largely without personal solicitation. But the display advertiser does not frantically rush to the publisher and say: “Here’s my check for $500.00. Give me a page display for this line of goods.” Not at all. The publisher must go after him and, not infrequently, go after him numerous times before he lands his $500.00 or $5,000.00 contract or order. To secure such advertisements the publisher employs the most skilled advertising solicitors within reach of his bank balance. Such men, if carried on his regular payroll, are among the “high-salaried” human units which make up the operating, managing and service personnel of his business. If they are not on regular salary the publisher must pay such men a liberal commission on the contracts secured, a commission seldom or never as low as 10 per cent and I have known them to range as high as 40 or 50 per cent of the gross price received on the first or initial contract, “just to show the advertiser what we can do for him,” as the publisher frequently reasons.
Senate Document No. 820 presents a reply by some publishers to Mr. Hitchcock’s loose or reckless statements on the point under consideration. I wish to appropriate for use here some very manifestly truthful statements made in that Senate Document No. 820. I shall summarize or quote as best fits my line of presentation.
In 1909 the publishers of five standard magazines, admittedly carrying “the largest amount of advertising” among the monthly periodicals, madea sworn statementcovering their receipts, expenditures and net profits. That sworn statement is on file in the Department of Commerce and Labor and is easily accessible to the Postmaster General if he desires to know a little something of whatthe publishers know about their own business. The publishers of the five periodicals thus making sworn statements to the government of their incomes, expenditures and profits, are the publishers of “Everybody’s,”“McClure’s”, “The Review of Reviews,” “The Cosmopolitan” and “The American.”
The named periodicals, it will be at once recognized, if not the strongest, at least are among the strongest monthly periodicals of this country. Yet these sworn statements show that Mr. Hitchcock’s proposed increase of 3 cents a pound in their mailing rates would, under present conditions,exhaust “81.8 percent of their net profits.”
If Mr. Hitchcock’s proposal, prompted, it would appear, by ulterior motives, as was recently evidenced by hisvoluminousbuttonholing of interested or “interests” Senators and Congressmen to put his “rider” over—no, maybe it is not really his, butit looks like him—for an increase on second-class matter would, if made operative, would so seriously impair the financial strength of five suchstrongperiodicals as those named, what, it is the part both of duty and of honesty to ask, will become of thescoresof smaller periodicals, especially of those periodicals which issue more than “two tons” at a mailing and which serve, inform andeducatea reading patronage that needs them?
If Mr. Hitchcock’s actions in this matter are clean and open—not “influenced”—he might not only serve himself but a good and worthy cause as well, if he would give some pointers to these smaller publishers—those between his “4,000 pounds an issue” exemptions from his four-cent rate and the stronger periodical publications, five of which are before him in sworn statement. If he would give, I say, these middle-class publishers—we may so call them for the comparison in hand, though their published matter is of thehighest classall the time—if he would give such publishers some method or scheme to keep from the financial rocks, they, I am quite sure, would greatly appreciate it. Possibly they would put him on their free lists in perpetuity.
Mr. Hitchcock appears to be a phenomenon at “figurin’” and for the devising of methods to obliterate postoffice “deficits;” also at following the ulterior motive and its “influence,” and still provide, by exemptions or otherwise, to protect the “fence-building” country newspapers,—indeed newspapers in general, now that I read him again. Likewise he protects the farm, the religious, the scientific, the mechanical and other publications whose influence, it appears, does notobstructivelyinfluence the “influences” which have directed his recent action.
I do not know who wrote that Senate Document No. 820. Whoever it was, he certainly knew “a gob of things,” as our splendid friend, the washerwoman, would put it, about the United States Postoffice Department, its management and its methods. I shall probably “crib” or plagiarize several times from this Senate Document No. 820, but just here I desire to quote a paragraph from it:
“Postmaster General Hitchcock’s profound ignorance concerning the relation of magazine advertising to magazine profits is shown by the fact that although these magazines received in 1909, $2,463,940.39 for advertising, the aggregate of their net incomes was only $230,734.57,—less than one-tenth of their advertising receipts.”
This Document No. 820 is all good, so good that I believe I will reprint from it further and at this point:
Postmaster General Hitchcock proceeds in the first and second paragraphs on page four to cite a recent increase of advertising rates of a certain magazine, and to consider, and use in figuring, as net profits thetotal amount of advertising it carries for the year.(It is of incidental interest, in showing thepartisan attitudeof the Postmaster General, that in calculating the total amount of advertising received by this publication, he takes the number of lines actually printed in this weekly’srichest advertising season, ignoring the fact that in the summer this periodical is sometimes published at a loss, and makes an estimate of its advertising patronage for the whole year on the basis of what it received in the months when advertising is at its height).But the gigantic error of the Postmaster General is in calculating the additional income from advertising for this weekly resulting from its increased advertising rate, and assuming that this increased income is all profit. This error arises from the Postmaster General’stotal ignoranceof the publishing business in general; and in particular, of the fact proved above, that the magazines save only a small fraction of their aggregate advertising income as net profits after paying the expenses of production and administration.Then the Postmaster General finds out how much money the increased rate brought the periodical and observes with an air of finality that this income was more than sufficient to meet the higher postal charges.The facts are, of course, that to get this higher advertising rate, the “great periodical” had to publish enough more copies and additional reading matter in those copies to justify the increased rate; and that to manufacture and supply these additional subscriptions it costs magazines more than twice as much as they get from subscribers. Furthermore, the Postmaster General takes gross advertising income as net profit, apparently thinking that advertising flows into periodical offices without the asking, where, as a matter of fact, it is necessary to spend enormous sums for high-priced men to solicit advertising, for other men to lay out plans and make designs for advertisers, and for a large clerical force to handlethe advertising department. The calm way in which the Postmaster General ignores the cost of presswork and paper on which the advertising is printed, exhibits his ignorance of the fact that there is in business an expense side of the ledger as well as an income side.If a magazine has 100,000 circulation and a fair corresponding rate for advertising and if the circulation is then increased to 200,000, the publisher has the same right and the same necessity to charge more for the doubled circulation that a grocer has to charge more for two pounds of tea than for one pound. But what possible relation has this to the fact that postage rates have remained stationary?The postoffice gives no more service than it did before magazine circulations and advertising increased—in fact it gives less, as it now requires the big magazines to separate and tag for distribution, and, in many cases, deliver to the trains,a vast quantity of magazine mail, formerly handled entirely by the postoffice.
Postmaster General Hitchcock proceeds in the first and second paragraphs on page four to cite a recent increase of advertising rates of a certain magazine, and to consider, and use in figuring, as net profits thetotal amount of advertising it carries for the year.
(It is of incidental interest, in showing thepartisan attitudeof the Postmaster General, that in calculating the total amount of advertising received by this publication, he takes the number of lines actually printed in this weekly’srichest advertising season, ignoring the fact that in the summer this periodical is sometimes published at a loss, and makes an estimate of its advertising patronage for the whole year on the basis of what it received in the months when advertising is at its height).
But the gigantic error of the Postmaster General is in calculating the additional income from advertising for this weekly resulting from its increased advertising rate, and assuming that this increased income is all profit. This error arises from the Postmaster General’stotal ignoranceof the publishing business in general; and in particular, of the fact proved above, that the magazines save only a small fraction of their aggregate advertising income as net profits after paying the expenses of production and administration.
Then the Postmaster General finds out how much money the increased rate brought the periodical and observes with an air of finality that this income was more than sufficient to meet the higher postal charges.
The facts are, of course, that to get this higher advertising rate, the “great periodical” had to publish enough more copies and additional reading matter in those copies to justify the increased rate; and that to manufacture and supply these additional subscriptions it costs magazines more than twice as much as they get from subscribers. Furthermore, the Postmaster General takes gross advertising income as net profit, apparently thinking that advertising flows into periodical offices without the asking, where, as a matter of fact, it is necessary to spend enormous sums for high-priced men to solicit advertising, for other men to lay out plans and make designs for advertisers, and for a large clerical force to handlethe advertising department. The calm way in which the Postmaster General ignores the cost of presswork and paper on which the advertising is printed, exhibits his ignorance of the fact that there is in business an expense side of the ledger as well as an income side.
If a magazine has 100,000 circulation and a fair corresponding rate for advertising and if the circulation is then increased to 200,000, the publisher has the same right and the same necessity to charge more for the doubled circulation that a grocer has to charge more for two pounds of tea than for one pound. But what possible relation has this to the fact that postage rates have remained stationary?The postoffice gives no more service than it did before magazine circulations and advertising increased—in fact it gives less, as it now requires the big magazines to separate and tag for distribution, and, in many cases, deliver to the trains,a vast quantity of magazine mail, formerly handled entirely by the postoffice.
I wonder if Mr. Hitchcock ever read “Job Jobson, Nos. 1, 2 and 3.” If he has not there is something due him which he ought to take immediate steps to collect. “Job Jobson” in three little pamphlets tellsmorethan either Mr. Hitchcock or myself will ever be able to learn about second-class mail carriage and handling—unless, of course, we read those three booklets of Job Jobson.
Why are Job Jobson’s three booklets so important? A very pertinent question, indeed, at this stage of our consideration. Job Jobson’s three booklets are toweringly important inasmuch as they were written by Wilmer Atkinson, publisher of the Farm Journal of Philadelphia, one of the most successful as well as the mostusefulfarm periodicals the world has ever produced.
More than that, Mr. Atkinson has so long and so thoroughly studied this second-class mail rate question that both Mr. Hitchcock and myself would have to take our places in the kindergarten class where he is tutor.
I haven’t those three “Job Jobson’s” by me. I have thumbed two of them out of existence, but from the one I have I desire to quote a couple of paragraphs which I hope it will do Mr. Hitchcock as much good to read as it does me to re-read. Here they are in all their vigor:
Publishers, one and all, should take their stand upon the immutable principle that newspaper circulation is not a crime, and it is not a fault, that neither a law on the statute books, much less arbitrary power outside the law, should ever be invoked to curtail the liberty and independence of the press, which are a sacred inheritance from the fathers; or to cripple newspaper enterprises or bankrupt those engaged in this noble calling.That to send their papers into the very confines of the republic, into everyhome, however rich, however humble, to brighten and to bless, is a great and beneficent work, worthy of all praise and all honor—worthy of the nurturing care, rather than the antagonism of government.
Publishers, one and all, should take their stand upon the immutable principle that newspaper circulation is not a crime, and it is not a fault, that neither a law on the statute books, much less arbitrary power outside the law, should ever be invoked to curtail the liberty and independence of the press, which are a sacred inheritance from the fathers; or to cripple newspaper enterprises or bankrupt those engaged in this noble calling.
That to send their papers into the very confines of the republic, into everyhome, however rich, however humble, to brighten and to bless, is a great and beneficent work, worthy of all praise and all honor—worthy of the nurturing care, rather than the antagonism of government.
And that was written only a few years ago—writtentrue to the facts. I desire here to quote a couple more paragraphs. They have been published generally throughout the country and universally indorsed. They are written by the Hon. Woodrow Wilson, Governor of New Jersey:
A tax upon the business of the more widely circulated magazines and periodicals would be a tax upon their means of living and performing their functions. They obtain their circulation by their direct appeal to the popular thought. Their circulation attracts advertisers. Their advertisements enable them to pay their writers and to enlarge their enterprise and influence.This proposed new postal rate would be a direct tax, and a very serious one, upon the formation and expression of opinion—its most deliberate formation and expression—just at a time when opinion is concerning itself most actively and effectively with the deepest problems of our politics and our social life. To make such a change, whatever its intentions in the minds of those who proposed it, would be to attack and embarrass the free processes of opinion.
A tax upon the business of the more widely circulated magazines and periodicals would be a tax upon their means of living and performing their functions. They obtain their circulation by their direct appeal to the popular thought. Their circulation attracts advertisers. Their advertisements enable them to pay their writers and to enlarge their enterprise and influence.
This proposed new postal rate would be a direct tax, and a very serious one, upon the formation and expression of opinion—its most deliberate formation and expression—just at a time when opinion is concerning itself most actively and effectively with the deepest problems of our politics and our social life. To make such a change, whatever its intentions in the minds of those who proposed it, would be to attack and embarrass the free processes of opinion.
I have before me the Postmaster General’s report for 1910. It presents a large amount of information both in statistical tabulation and in “straight matter.” A portion of the former, however, leaves the average lay mind rambling around in circles, wondering what in the name of all that is lofty it was compiled for, what service value it can possibly have and what was the ailment from which the fellow who compiled it suffered; that is, was his a case merely of bad liver or indigestion, or a serious case of ingrown intellect, struggling to help his fellowmen know how real dizzy and foolish tabulated figures can be made to appear?
Mr. Hitchcock in this 1910 report has separated himself from some striking oddities, about as serviceably valuable as a smoking compartment would be to a laundry wagon. Of course, it may be that Mr. Hitchcock did not write the division of this report signed by him. Some talented secretary, clerk or assistant may have cranked it up. However that may be, do not let what I here say deter you from looking through this 1910 report should it come your way. It contains a variety of excellent things, some valuable information, well collated and intelligibly presented. The foolishness and fooleries in it are—well, they are of the kind common to all, or at least most, departmental reports, federal, state, county and city. Much of the tabulated “statistics” in each can have no possible service value either in this world or the next—even assuming that statistics and statisticians will be recognized at all in that division of the “next” to which we all aspire.
As to the “straight matter” in these departmental reports, one often finds in it some most excellent suggestions, as is certainly the case with Mr. Hitchcock’s 1910 production. One also finds a lot of other suggestions and space-written stuff that would make a totem laugh—that is, of course, presuming a totem could laugh and had advanced as far as the third grammar school grade in reading.
And the “literary style” of these official reports; so aerial in elevation, so officially dignified in “tone,” so profusely profound orprofoundly profuse in elaboration and detail, and often sotrivialin significance or import!
If they were still with us, the “literary” standard of most of these departmental reports would make Bertha M. Clay hug the rail and E. P. Roe carry weight. But, of course, one must not look for nor expect literary exaltedness in a departmental report. It should, however, tell us—we people—a good many things we wish to know, in fact,oughtto know. It should not give us too much talk merely to show us how much—or how little—some chief or assistant knows. If you get the opportunity, read the Postmaster General’s 1910 report, and you will find many things in it that will jar you loose from your expectations, but do not be alarmed at that. Just keep in mind the fact that you can come as near reciting the Rubaiyat backwards as can Postmaster General Hitchcock, and that you at least know Old Mother Hubbard “by heart” as well as he knows it.
The point I am trying to make—to emphasize—is that Mr. Hitchcock’s 1910 report presents much valuable information for you and me. So you should not allow its follies to scare you off. For instance, the Postmaster General’s fifty notations of “Improvements in Organization and Methods.” Why he should stop at a round fifty I do not know. I believe he could easily have added twenty or thirty moreof kind. Some of these “improvements” are most excellent; some of them are so assumedly conclusive on matters previously—for years—in doubt and controversy as to touch off the risibles in any man who has made anything like a careful study of conditions governing the Postoffice Department. For instance, his “Improvement” numbered 10 reads:
“The successful completion of aninquiryinto the cost of handling and transporting mail of the several classes and of conducting the money order, registry and special delivery services.”
We canhopethat the aforesaid “inquiry” was so carefully and comprehensively conducted as to entitle it to be classed as “successful” as Mr. Hitchcock’s statement is assertive. However, just how far we may prudently indulge such hope is a matter for grave consideration. The Postmaster General’s Third Assistant, James J. Britt, attempts to tell us (pp. 328-329, 1910 report), all about it. Mr. Britt will be referred to later.
Again: Mr. Hitchcock in his No. 11 “Improvement,” reports“the successful prosecution of an inquiry into the costto the railroad companiesof carrying the mails, the result of which will form areliable basisfor fixing rates of pay for railroad mail transportation.”
Now, if Mr. Hitchcock has really and truly so conducted an “inquiry” as to ascertain a “reliable basis” of pay for the mail haulage service rendered by the railroads—“a reliable basis” that can be built upon, acted upon andenforced—if he has done that, then he deserves a niche in the Hall of Fame. But here, again, I am doubtful. Did you take Britt’s word for it, Mr. Hitchcock, or did you steer the “inquiry” yourself? The only point of interest to us of the commonalty involved in your eleventh improvement is: Can you, or any other Postmaster General, compel or persuade the railroads to carry the mail at a reasonable rate? Will such rate be based upon that “reliable basis” you say you have ascertained?
Grant us but that and we shall ask no more nor will you have any “deficits” to worry about. I know you explain quite fully (pp. 18-20), as to how you went about it, how Congress made appropriation for a force of “temporary clerks” to tabulate the information, the data which your “successful” inquiry brought to the surface. Still, knowing something about thedeviouspeculiarities of the railways in the past—say, back to the Wolcott investigation (at this moment I forget the year when this was made and have neither the time nor the opportunity to climb down and look it up)—unless the railways have had a rush of honesty and conscience into their reports, accounts andpractices, I am gravelydoubtfulas to the dependability of the data your “inquiry” uncovered. Of course, if you went after them, backed by a court order calling for a showdown, Mr. Hitchcock, you may have arrived somewhere in the vicinity of the facts. Otherwise—well, you got about what otherinquirersgot—got what the railways wanted you to know.
I shall make no further specific reference to the fifty improvements the Postmaster General claims to have covered into operative effectiveness. It is due, however, that I say, in this connection, that the majority of those named in the report are sound, sane andserviceablyeconomic. It is also due from me to say that I personally know that Mr. Hitchcock has already made a number of them effectively operative in his department and to the betterment of its service. Mycontention with the Postmaster General is chiefly concerning three points, viz.:
First—His manifest intent to throw the burden of his departmental deficit upon a fewindependentperiodicals which, by reason of their independence, have indulged the proclivity or practice oftelling the truth about corporate, vested and other favored interests, and about corrupt officials—city, county, state, national, executive, legislative and juridic.
Second—His colossally unjust and unfair way of figuring his “deficit” against such periodicals. Maybe it was Britt, Third Assistant Postmaster General, or some other “pied” subordinate who did the figuring. I do not know. However, in common with other citizens, I hold Mr. Hitchcock responsible for those figures, as we are fully warranted in doing by reason of his official position.
Third—Mr. Hitchcock, it appears, in his reports and letters, gives us a lot of talk that istwisted, “pretzel talk,” someone has aptly called it. This “night-crawler” talk quite naturally—legitimately, if not naturally—leaves thoughtful people to wonder what he wants,what he is after, what interest or interests he is trying to subserve and what “influences” haveinfluencedhim to go after certain periodicals in sobald and crude a way.
Still, that does not altogether fully express my third objection to Mr. Hitchcock and his methods. His letters and special reports in support of the absurd claim that the transportation and handling of second-class mail matter costs 9.23 cents per pound, a figure above or equal to that which will carry gold or currency billsby expressfor the average mail haul, furnish valid grounds for doubt as to the good faith of his intent, to suspicion anulterior motiveback of his action and writings. To this I do not hesitate to say that his 1910 report, I mean his own personally signed section of it, is offensivelybureaucratic. Mr. Hitchcock, it appears from his own recommendations, would have his bureau or department bigger than Congress. He wants powers and authority centered in it which Congressshould not delegate, which Congress has no rightful powers nor authority to delegate.
Now, do not misapprehend me. Maybe Mr. Hitchcock has not done all this on his own initiative. He may have acted wholly on a long-distance or a central direction from the main stem. I shall,however, proceed to support my accusation that Mr. Hitchcock evidences in his 1910 report a desire—a tendency, if not a desire,—to make the Postmaster General not only a censor of periodical literature (as indicated in the wording of that “rider” amendment printed on a previous page), but to have delegated to him powers over the mail service which not only contravene the basic principles of a democratic form of government, but which, also, tend to establish a bureaucracy that, if carried to its full flower, will, necessarilyabrogate our form of government itself.
Here let us note Mr. Hitchcock’s recommended legislation. In the report before me he makes thirty-six recommendations. In each of these which grants added powers or authority touching any matter, the wording of the suggested legislation gives such added powers and authority to thePostmaster General. In certain minor matters, especially such as relate only to departmental methods of handling its service accounts, etc., such grant of power is entirely proper. Among Mr. Hitchcock’s recommendations are several of such character, and, so far as I have studied them, they appear sound, and consequently their passage by Congress and their application to the department would, in my judgment, effect material savings or betterments in the service.
In a number of other instances, however, Mr. Hitchcock asks legislation that will grant him (or any succeeding head of the federal Postoffice Department), powers and authority whichshould be granted to no bureau or departmental division of our government service. I mean that the acquirement of such legislative powers and authority by bureaus (cabinet service divisions), is inimical to the basic principles of our government; in fact, it is astealthymove to establish in this country the bureaucratic form of government which has proved a curse in every existing monarchical government, causing their peoples to rebel against them, or constantly a condition of unrest under the system—a condition which indicates eitherenforcedsubmission to governmental wrongs and impositions or a dwarfed and submerged manhood, “begging for leave to live” and devoting most of its thought to a few questions, such as: “Why did I arrive? What am I here for? I work, why does the government take most of my earnings? Why does the government and its bureau heads live, live in luxury, while I and my wife and children merely exist,—barely subsist?Why arehundreds of millions taken every year from people who need it to secure the common comforts of life, and given, unearned, to those who need it not at all?”
It would require pages even to print the inquiries which the victims of bureaucratic governments ask themselves daily, ask themselves daily so long as theyexist above the level of the clod, above the level which Edward Markham so forcefully and eloquently depicts in his “Man with the Hoe.”
The point I desire to emphasize is that when the great body of people in any country—its “citizens”—begin to ask themselves such questions,their patriotism begins to dry-rot and die, and when the patriotism of a nation’s people begins to die, that nation is on the farther slope of its existence; it has started on the decline, more or less sharp,which ends in rebellion, dissolution, extinction. This is the uniform lesson of history. He who reads it not so reads either not carefully or not comprehendingly.
To a few of my readers the foregoing may appear to be a digression from my subject. It is not intended as such. It is intended to call the reader’s attention to some powers and authority Mr. Hitchcock seeks in his recommended legislation,legislation which should not be enacted. Let us look at a few of those recommendations. If space permitted, I would take pleasure in commenting on several more of them.
On page 10 of his report, Mr. Hitchcock repeats a recommendation of his 1909 report. He repeats it “earnestly.” He also expresses the opinion that “as soon as the postal savings system is thoroughly organized, the Postoffice Department should be prepared to establish throughout the country a general parcels post.” As a “preliminary step” to such establishment of a parcels post Mr. Hitchcock seeks authority from Congress to initiate a “limited parcels post service on rural routes.” On page 26 of his report, Mr. Hitchcock suggests thesubstantialsof the legislation he believes necessary to enable him to establish his contemplated “limited parcels post service on rural routes,”as an experimental test.
As evidence that he wants the power and authority to make this “experiment” on his own lines and judgment and pursuant of hisown purposesI shall here quote the form of his advised legislation. To anyone who has made study of parcels post service it is needless to saythat among the civilized nations of the earth the United States is so far in arrears in such service as to be generally recognized as an international joke. It is quite needless to say to such that Mr. Hitchcock’s prattle of a “limited” parcels post and of trying it on certainselectedrural routes (with no privileges of service beyond the geographical limits of such routes), as an “experiment,” is more than a mere joke.
Informed people know that any such restricted test of a parcels post serviceis no test at all. Informed men also know that our Federal Postoffice Department needs make no “experiments” on the parcels post service, “limited” or other. Every other civilized nation, and even provinces such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and others, have made the “experiments,” likewise the successful demonstrations. The experiments of these other nations and provinces, as well as the results of them, are ours for the asking. Not alone that, but informed menknow, and know positively, that our Federal Postoffice Department is in possession of—or was in possession of—all this information gathered from the experiences and trials and tests of a parcels post service in these other countries.
So, I repeat that Mr. Hitchcock’s talk about making an experimental test of the general value of a parcels post service by putting it in operation on a fewselectedrural routes is a joke,or else it is an evasion in order to delay the installation of a service which every citizen wants, save, of course, the few individuals who now own and control our railroads,which individuals also own, to a controlling extent at least,our express companies.
But I must quote Mr. Hitchcock’s advised legislation in order to show the reader that Mr. Hitchcock desires that the resulting powers and authority center in him, or in his successors: