Brownsville herald. [volume] (Brownsville, Tex.) 1910-current, 1914-01-03
LOOK FOR ROB ROY
PRICE FIXING PROS AND CONS.

Secretary of Commerce Hedfield. in
his annual report. hints rather strongly
that he entcrtains a private opinion in
favor. under certain conditions. of per
hitting manufacturers 10 fix the prices
AT which their goods shall he sold M re-
tail. While the question may he regard
ei a> IN the dcbatab,e stage. in patent
and copyright eases the Supreme court
has he'd that the possession of the copy
right or Of the patent itself il a monop
oily right. and that this right must not BE-
extended further 10y retail price fixing
This was trIe If the Sanatogcn ease
and If the Bebbs- Merrill ease. The first
of these sustained the price cutting Of n
patent remedy the second the price
cutting of copyright books. When. how
ever. goods bearing a Trademark or n
trade name are involved. another prin
ciplc appears To enter.
1t j. he'd bv some authorities of
weight that every individual manufac-
turer Of tradcmarkcd goods ought To-
have the right to determine the price III
which the goods are 10 h. sold In origi
nal packages. that his position i'm the
market ought a. bc the same whether
he j. both manufacturers and retailer
"a il the Standard Oil companv-or
must. like the less powerful concerns.
use the iobbcr or retailer rs a means Of
distribution: that. in Il word. the iul,ber
and retailer are 10 him a. much 4 means
Of distribution as the railroad the mail
and the express.
These authorities contend that i'll eases
Of this character the courts have failed
To take due recount of n real difference
~ the facts Of trade. and made no dis
tinction between the ease of rival mann
facturers combining and forming "A mo
nopoly IN 4 staple article. on the one
hand. and. on the other. independent
manufacturers engaged in competitive
business. each determining for himself
the method of marketing goods most ia.
vorable To him.
II j. pointed out that the defenders of
price maintenance have no purpose of
permitting the practice when goods ars
soid ~ bulk under a trade name. AMI
when in consequence. they lose them
selves IN the mass as soon ~ the first
sale j. made.
Failure Ia permitc price maintenance
~ the way favored ~ the authorities
quoted Will. in their view. certainly re-
suit. to a large extent. in the snb>titu.
ton Of capitalistic chains of stores. mail
order houses or actual monopo iStic con
Germs for the numerous independent
manufacturers or dealers.
This reason has u%ndouhtcl force and
~ would he well Ia consider very care
fully whether price fixing. ~ thus ,c
fined and defended wonli not he an aid
10 the regulation of competition rather
- has becn thought. th1n 4 means ~ dc
ieaiing IL. Incidental results of nm
limited price cutting extend far. They
may find expression in deterioration az
product and depression of wages Of en-.
p.oyeS. The facts. aS Secretary Ecplfield
intimatcS. NAV call for legislation.
In this State. the act Of April 1. 1913
ia prevent unfair competition and nm.
TAR trade practices exposes price cut
Icrs OF branded or ~trademarkcd goods or
goods having an established trade name
or reputation. 10 injunction suits ~ the
manufacturers and Ia damages that
may be- increased thrccfold III the discrc
iion Of the courts. This law Lacks force.
necessarily. in Interstate hat
a. regards New Jersey il il believed IA
super>cdc the prohibitions III the - ven
sisters. corporation laws against prize
maintenance of EAR icr date. Newark
N. il Evening \rMs