The Greenville journal. [volume] (Greenville, Ohio) 1850-1918, 1908-02-13
No. 81.

Of the commonwealth.
Some time ago. Representative
Metzger introduced in the house an
"anti-discriminstion" bill, which, in ef-
feet, prevents competition in manu-
featuring and merchandising busi-
nesses that do an inter-city trading.
II the bill were enacted into a law
IL would make It impossible for q
merchant or manufacturer to put his
product In competition with any other
such trader 1t would stifie compe-
tition.
Instead of being an "anti-discrimi-
nation" bill it really is an "anti-com-
petition" bill. 1t imposes a severe
penalty for infraction of the provi-
sions Of the bill-revocation of the
charter Of an incorporated company
and a fine Of $500, to $1,000 or i'm
prisonment for one year or both fine
and prison. In few words, it makes
competition prison offense.
The meat of the Metzger antitrust
ness bill Is carried in the first section
thereof: Any person. firm, company,
association or corporation, foreign or
domestic, doing business in the state Of
Ohio and engaged in the production,
manufacture or distribution OF any
commodity in general use, that shall
Intentionally, for the purpose Of de-
stroying the business of a competitor
in any locality. discriminate between
different sections, communities or
cities of this state. by selling such
commodity at lower rate in one
section. community or city, than Is
charged for said commodity by said
party in another section. community
or city, after making due allowance
for the difference, if any, in the grade
or quality and in the actual cost OF
transportation from the point OF pro-
duction If a raw product or from the
point Of manufacture Of a manufac-
tured product, shall be deemed guilty
of unfair discrimination, which Is ,
hereby prohibited and declared un.
lawful. 4
But it was up to Representative /
Winters to go Mr.. Matzger one bet !
ter. He included local retail business
in his category. He also makes am
enable to fine and Imprisonment not !
only the proprietors and officers of |
those engaged in business of any |
kind or character within the state of |
Ohio" but includes and representa- |
tive, attorney, agent or salesman" OF |
such trust, corporation. syndicate, :
combination, cO-partn2rship or Or /
ganizarion or others engaged in busi- /
ness of any kind or character at |
wholesale or retail"
The Winters bill seeks to compel !,
the business men enumerated above |
to keep out Of competition, and also |
demands that they be compelled to |
sell any products or commodities
when the usual selling or market !
price is offered therefor This is also |
termed an anti-discrimination act.
When the business interests of the
state awake to the real import OF the !
Metzger and Winters bill it is expect
ed that opposition will develop which !
will do to the proposed laws what the /!
bills seek to do to merchants and
manufacturers-put them out of busi- |
ness. 4
Consistency cuts no figure with all
&hn Of ho clo
fact developed when the cities COM
mittee refused to insert referendum
clause in the Shuler bill to cure an
error in the municipal code. Through
some mistake the code did not confer
upon cities the right to sell electricity
or gas, although it gave them power
to construct and operate plants and
manufacture products thereof for
their own use. The supreme court
held that such was the case.
When the curative bill was introduc-
ed two amendments were suggested,
one to provide that no municipality
shall sell to its inhabitants light, heat
other prohibiting officers from engag-
ing the municipality in such business
until they have been authorized to do
90 by vote of the people.
Both Of the proposed amendments
were urged as being directly in the
interests of the taxpayers and the
general public There was not full
attendance of the members of the
committee at the session, but it SEEM
cd to be conceded that some such
limitations or restrictions should be
embodied in the act. After the dis
cussiUn the committee went into ex-
ecutive session and 1t Is understood
that they agreed to report the bill
without embOdying either OF the pro-
posed amendments or making any
provision to prevent the sale of gas or
electricity to private individuals at
less than cost and without making
any provision requiring an expression
by the people. The amendment pro-
posed that municipalities shall not
render such service at less than cost,
Is, in substance, contained in the stat
ute law of several Of the states, not
ably Massachusetts and Connecticut,
and the same principals are contained
IN the bill of Mr.. Braun now pending
in the house relating to waterworks
In this state.
1t was suggested that the proposed
amendment, requiring a submission to
a vote of the people, should not apply
to municipalities now engaged in such
business.
While the amendments met with
approval, it developed that Mayor
Johnson of Cleveland had something
OF a strangle hold on the cities COM