Never in my experience as a supporter of the late Administration
did I ask that such a thing be done. It may have been done, but if it was, it was just as reprehensible then as it is now. This country has never had a Postmaster General who disregarded the system of ten-% der and contract to the extent the predecessor of the present Postmaster General did; and I suppose the -staff of the department has been so badly trained in recent years that it would be difficult for them now to revert to more correct methods. I do not know how the evil is to be corrected. One method might be for the Postmaster General to resign and let some one else come in, or he might give the matter his serious and earnest consideration, and see that the practice of tender and contract was not departed from hereafter. I was disappointed when the Postmaster General justified, a little while ago, the awarding of a contract to a person whose tender -was not the lowest. That is not what I expected from a good public administrator. Had he not attempted to justify it, I should have thought that he was not responsible for this very improper and reprehensible practice; but it was quite clear that he sought to justify it, and he even looked around for applause, and received some from hon. gentlemen sitting around him. So I must believe that the Postmaster General is a party to this improper practice.
Subtopic: TAXATION OF PROFITS.