_First_--His manifest intent to throw the burden of his departmental deficit upon a few _independent_ periodicals which, by reason of their independence, have indulged the proclivity or practice of _telling 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 is _twisted_, “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” have _influenced_ him to go after certain periodicals in so _bald 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 bills _by express_ for the average mail haul, furnish valid grounds for doubt as to the good faith of his intent, to suspicion an _ulterior motive_ back 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 offensively _bureaucratic_. 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 Congress _should 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, necessarily _abrogate our form of government itself_.