What happened to his mental gear in so short a time to induce so _loud_ a change in his mind?
Or was it a change of mind? On page 328 of that 1910 departmental report, Mr. Britt, Third Assistant Postmaster General, who has charge of the accounting division of the service, makes the bold statement that it cost the government $62,438,644.70 more to carry and handle the second-class mail last year than was received for the service. Being an “expert” figurer Mr. Britt found no difficulty in arriving at that absurd 9.23 cents a pound as the _actual cost_ to the government of carrying and handling second-class mail. On pages 7 and 8 of the report, Mr. Hitchcock himself gives publicity to a conviction that the cent-a-pound rate should be increased on certain periodicals--_the magazines_--generously suggesting that the increased rate be confined to their “advertising pages” only. In the loosely worded “rider” he carelessly--_or purposely_--uses the word “sheets” in place of the word “pages” as used in his report.
Still, in face of his Third Assistant’s lofty figuring, the conclusions of which are announced on page 328 of the report, and of his own statement of the “reasons for an increase of rate” on periodicals of the _magazine class_, for carrying and handling their “advertising pages”--in face of these statements, how did his mental gear so slip, or “jam,” as to induce him to recommend, on page 35 of this _same_ report, the enactment of a law continuing the cent-a-pound rate on _all_ periodicals mailed, except sample copies?
Did he intentionally double cross both himself and his Third Assistant or, in his anxiety to curb the circulation growth of periodicals, _did he forget_ what he and Mr. Britt had said?
I give it up. However it may appear to the reader, to The Man on the Ladder it appears that Mr. Hitchcock in his 1910 report has written, figured and “recommended” himself into a situation that is far more humoresque than it is consistent or informative.
Returning to the report of the 1906-7 commission, I will mention a few more of its objectionable recommendations.
As previously stated, the Penrose-Overstreet Commission recommended the enactment of a law requiring that newspapers and other periodicals devote not more than one-half their space to advertising matter (Section 3 of recommended bill, page 50 of report). Thus, in pressing an ill-conceived purpose to restrain the growth of circulation and increase of weight of monthly and weekly periodicals, they would, it appears, cut into that division of their published matter _which produces the greatest revenue to the government for carriage and handling_.