Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1914-09-05
GATHERED BY THE WAYsIDE

destroy competition thru these means
would be prohibited. and the offender
would not be able to escape by appeal
ing to the rigid language of a criminal
law"
| Senator Cummins wanted the matter
left to the commission under the
sweeping authority to prevent unfair
competition" but this is the embodi-
ment in section of the trade COM
mission bill. When pressed by Senator
Nelson to explain the effect Of the sec
| ton he said:
If he intended to ask whether the
effect of the enforcement of section 5
of the trade commission bill would be
TO legaliZe monopoly and to strengthen
| It's power, l say emphatically No
believe, and l believe sincerely, that
the proper enforcement of section 5
| or the trade commission bill will do
more to keep the channels of trade free
anu open, and will do more TO preserve
permanent and enduring competition
IN the business and commerce of the
United States than the Sherman anti
trust law has ever done. or than any
provision of the so-called Clayton bill
can do, that is honest opinion"
These little quotations from hundreds
of pages of discussion of these various
! bills throw some light on the main
features of the bill and the thoughts
OF those who were framing them I'D.
1t is worth while giving a little more
or the discussion on the qualifications
in the Clayton bill. over which there
was much discussion. On this Senator
| Cummins said:
The senator from Missouri believed
| that the sections We're the only ones
which increased the efficiency of the
anti trust law. and, as he described it,
were the only sections that had teeth in
them My own opinion-and it is an
honest, sincere opinions that there
are not enough teeth in section of the
Clayton bill TO I1asticate successfully
milk toast. and | doubt whether teeth
can be put into il without bringing
under its condemnation a great sinany
practices that are recognized to be
honest and fair. ! Will recapitulate
very briefly what l said about section .
1t Is the section to prohibit ana prevent
what is known as local price cutting,
and in that way eliminating competi-
ton in the community. The section
provides:
That il shall be unlawful for any
person engaged in commerce, either di-
| rectly or indirectly, to discriminate in
price between different purchasers OF
commodities. which communities are
sold for use consumption or resale
within the United States or any terri
tory thereof or the District OF Columbia
or any insular possession or other place
under the jurisdiction of the United
States
, If the section were to stop there, it
would have teeth, but il would operate
upon many transactions which we do
not desire prohibit, therefore those
who prepared the section felt impelled
to go further and make some quaIifica-
tons of the prohibition have just read.
There would be no difficulty ut all in
applying it if we were to pause at the
point at which have now arrived. 1t
would not be difficult to prove that a
seller had Disseminated in price be-
tween different localities or different
buyers in the same locality, but COM
petition can not be preserved unless
| Mere is some discrimination. II the
section were to stop there it would do
the very thing we do not want it TO do.
Therefore the authors of this section
fel. impelled to say that this discrim-
ination must be with the purpose or
intent thereby to destroy or wrongfully
injure the business Of competitor of
either such purchaser or seller The
very moment those words are inserted
ard I am not suggesting even that
they are not necessary words-a field is
open for investigation which is more
difficult to traverse. and questions are
proposed for decision that are more
trr
within the fifth section of the trade
commission bill, which prohibits unfair
competition.
What is it to wron gfully injure the
business of a competitor? Can anyone
define il SO that we can understand in
the beginning what it is to wrongfully
that is | assume, to unlawfully-in-
jure the business of a competitor?
What declaration of the statute erects
any standard to determine whether
particular injury done to q competitor
is wrongful or otherwise? I am not in
sisting that it was not proper to use the
word: but when it is used you draw
large part of the teeth of the section
and render II comparatively harmless
and innocuous.
But that is not ALL continued the
Iowa senator in analyzing this whole
subject. That was not sufficient in
order 10 relieve the statute from the
charge that il covered great many
things that il ought not to cover. There
fore II was found necessary TO add:
PROVIDED. that nothing herein con-
tanned shall prevent discrimination in
price between purchasers of commodi-
ties on account of differences in the
grade. quality. or quantity of the com
, modify sold
IF a seller can make discrimina ton
in price on account of a difference in
/ the quantity of the article sold. there is
no possibility of reaching designing
monopolist. because the quantity can be
changed with the utmost ease
thought when we were considering this
section that we should have interposed
the words sales made under snbstan-
/, TALLY similar conditions These words
! would have had little latitude enough
4 so that a mere variance of the quantity
Z in comparing two sales would not re-
/ lieye he transaction of the condemna-
ton of the law.
But that is not all. There were other
exceptions that had to be made in order
to limit the proposed statute to things
( that are really evil. II proceeds:
"'Or that makes only due allowance
+ for difference in the cost of selling
/ There is an open door so wide that
( it can be entered with impunity and
determinations can be made without
any fear of retribution. Cost of selling