Possibly I may be in error as to this, but the careful observation of the best informed and most experienced correspondents on the Washington assignment, as well as a number of Senators and Congressmen, have, in reports made, supplied ample evidence to warrant my statement to the effect that there was a collusive understanding among a few people to present that “rider” in the closing hours of the session with the hope that in the rush of affairs it might escape notice and go through. And that hope was born of an ulterior purpose to get even with some monthly and weekly publications--publications of _independent_ thought and voice and which have for several years been _telling the truth_ about certain Senators and Congressmen. These independent periodicals have also been telling a rapidly growing multitude of eager readers the cold, unvarnished facts about some corporations and corporate interests which, it is generally believed and openly charged, are represented in federal legislation and in cabinet and other official circles in Washington _by several of the very men who were so actively supporting Mr. Hitchcock in pushing his “rider” over the legislative course_.
A brief summary of the history of that rider may be presented at this point. The Penrose-Overstreet bill was before the House in the early part of 1910. It carried no recommendation of an increased rate on second-class matter. This Penrose-Overstreet bill was, however, reintroduced in the House by Congressman Weeks, of Massachusetts, Chairman of the House Postoffice Committee, and by Senator Carter in the Senate. The House refused either to approve or take action on Mr. Hitchcock’s recommendation. After consideration, the Senate approved the House bill. That bill carried no recommendation for an increase in second-class postage rates. Not a single member of the Senate during the debate suggested nor introduced any bill or amendment recommending such increase.
In his message of December, 1910, President Taft recommended an increase in the second-class mail rates. His recommendation was couched in language very similar to that used in his message of December, 1909.
Mr. Samuel Blythe, from whom I have previously quoted extendedly, says some pertinent things in commenting on the situation at this point in our brief outline of how this “rider” got mounted for a lap or two and then was blanketed in the home-stretch: