El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1919-07-18
PROFTTEERING BILL A FAIR SAMPLE
OF SHIRT SLEEVE LEGISLATION

THOUGH the Davis Ganti-profiteering" bill has been
"A reported favoraby, with minority adverse report
by the senate committee criminal Jurisprudence at Aus
tin, It all but certain that the storm of opposition
stirred up throughout the state viii result in defeating the
measure. e. Pasoans have joined in the opposition
This does not mean that FL Pasoans Texans gen
orally, trying to uphold proteerng, but they reeog
nze IN this Davis bill piece Of bad legislation which
would not only not eliminate pIofteerng even hand
cap it any way, but would actually raise the cost Of
living and Prove hardship to everybody sellers and
buyfs alike:
detail because It fair example of much of the half
baked legislation that before legislatures would
have passed too If the above mentioned outcry in oppos
ton had not interviewed.
The bin requires "that any person. partnership joint
stock company corporation hereafter engaged in
the mercantile business in this state who shall expose
offer for sale to the public any article of merchandise
without having plainly written printed stamped there
on OF attached thereto the true actual cost thereof shall
be guilty Of profiteering and shall be punished" by fine
Of not less than SIS than $500 and by mprson
ent in the county Jail for not less than 10 than
90 days. in the case of individual a member Of
partnership or Of joint stock company and by fine Of
$40 to $1,000 in the Of corporation which shall be
sued by the state for the recovery Of said fine and which
shall forfeit It's charter second conviction for violation
The bill applies only "those who purchase from
others, goods, and merchandise" and the true,
actual price thereof shall construed include
@any dTayage freight carriage charges paid by the
purchaser any discount bills paid before maturity
And @each article Of goods wares and merchandise so
exposed Offered for sale caused to be exposed
offered for sale shall constitute separate offence
If all merchants in the same line of business were
obliged to print cost well sale price each article
N accordance with such law, IS natural that the public
would consider those merchants making the widest margin
OF profit profteeTs whereas such inference might
be wholly unjust.
For instance A IS merchant with a large volume of
business and rapid turnover who buys large quantities
gets favorable prices from his Of supply
because of that fact Also he discounts his bills and
IN that way. We Will say that he buys article
for S. and sells for So leaving margin of So. His
smaller competitor B. with limited trade able to buy
only in relatively small quantities and unable to avail
himself Of discounts, may buy the article for 81
offer It for sale for $3.50 sells at greater profit
to himself and this bill would brand him profiteer
when, matter Of fact, he has saved the customer
so cents BIS price. It is unfair to provide
parison Of cost and sale prices without providing
pason the conditions under which each firm doing
business.
Moreover to force each mercantile put cost
as well sale price each article would the first year
at least, vast amount Of clerical work, which
would up doing business inevitably
reflected the sale price The expense would be
passed on to the customer in the form Of higher prices
and the public would suffer along with the merchants
affected
This bill is not altogether about ike
It put through in Arizona by the state council of
defence time back but II killed after the public
had been shown that it meant hardship to everybody
and a benefit to nobody.
The Davis bill misses profeerng altogether. Profiteer
ing about through combinations TO fix prices and is
be stricken through rigid enforcement of existing anti
trust laws.
Moreover why should hardship be PLACED one class