The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1916-05-19
SCORES BILL TO
 FIX PRICES IN
 RETAIL STORES
Head of National Retail Dry Goods Association Tells Mer- chants That SteVen-Aldhurst Measure Would Lead to Gov ernment Control.

New Haven, May 19.-At the an nuaI meeting of the Connecticut Mer- chants association held at the Hotel Taft yesterday afternoon E1bridge Howe, formerly of this city and now head of the National Retail Dry Goods association, spoke against the Stevens AIdhurst bill providing for uniformity of prices which he declared would lead to government control of the business of the retailer.
 MT. Howe said in raetrt:
 Before going into the practical ob- jections to this legislation from the point of view of the retailer and the consumer, I would like to say a few words on the broader aspects of the question. I wish to draw your atten- tion to the fact that the principles underlying the price fixing proposals go much deeper than is generally ap- preciated; that in effect they strike at the very foundations of our democ- racy. This, I admit. sounds like a very strong statement, but I feel that it is no exaggeration of the facts.
 t'The manufacturer does not want the government to regulate prices; he wants the government to permit him to regulate the prices. But if the manufacturer may fix the prices at which his goods may be re-so1d, the retailer in self-defense must ask the government to regulate the prices the manufacturer may charge. A
 This would mean government profit fixing. It would lead to government wage fixing, to government control of the business of the manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer. It is rank paterna1isrn; it is. unwarranted and dangerous restriction of initiative and individuality; it is the negation of the fundamehtal democratic principles.
 'tPaternalism in this country has grown to serious, to dangerous pro- portions, and no clear thinking, for ward looking man can contemplate with equanimity any extension of it. In this respect price fixing is as dan gerous to the manufa acturer as to the retailer, and there are, I am glad to say, many manufacturers who are full ly alive to the fact.
 t'It is a. pure sophistry to say that this proposed legislation does not merchants; that it leaves the merchant free to carry or not to carry identi- fled merchandise as he pIeases;. that it protects the small retailer from be- ing crushed out by the unfair compe- tition of the department stores. By sufficiently copious advertising the manufacturer of any identified mer-I chandise can practically force mer- chant to carry his goods. As far as this particular merchandise is con- 'cerned. competitions between mer- chants, is absolutely killed.
 ttAs a matter of fact. the interests of both small and large retailers are one on this question. This is not a question of competitive methods be- tween retailers; it is a question of ta- king away from all retailers, large and small, a right which they have fmme- morially enjoyed and transferring it to the manufacturers. It means that the reputation good will, business ability, enterprise ~ all the qualities which make a successful merchant will be of no worth, and competition will become simply a. competition in advertising between manufacturers. It means in short that the government of the United States, in passing such a law as is proposed. would sanction4 and protect a privileged few in prof iting at the loss of the many"
 The members of the association passed a unanimous vote in opposition to the bill.
 w. c. Nugent of New York, address ed the meeting on the subject, What Constitutes a Good Merchant?" He is the editor of 'sWomen's Wear a trade paper published in New York.