The Prince George's enquirer and southern Maryland advertiser. (Upper Marlborough, Md.) 1882-1925, 1920-06-25
WOODEN TRUST.
CASE FAILS
Profiteering Indictment Against
American Company and VIII
liam M. Wood Dismissed.
APPEAL TO BE TAKEN.
Accused of Increasing Prices 800 Per
Cent and Paying Enormous Sala-
ries-Lever Act Removed Cloth
From List of Necessaries.

New York-Federal Judge Mack Oh
rected the dismissal of the Indictment
against the American Wooden Compa-
ny of New York and Massachusetts
and William NJ. Wood president of the
company, charged with profiteering I'M
der the Lever act The indictment had
been returned on figures showing that
in 1919 Mr.. Wood had received $515,-
4S2.S6 in commissions charged to man
ufacturing and selling expenses and
that he also had received enormous
salaries" from both companies. The
company was charged with having in
creased prices more than 800 per cent.
The order for dismissal was based
ON an amendment to the Lever act
which included wearing apparel
among the things which came under
the ban against profiteering. The court
held that if this amendment had not
0een made the indictment might have
been sound, but by specifically naming
wearing apparel the amendment linz
ed cloth.
It later was announced that the gov
eminent would appeal.
Judge Mack said the substantial
question involved was whether piece
Of cloth was a necessary within section
of the Lever act, on which the indict-
meDt was based, or whether it was
wearing apparel as defined. in the
amendment made on October %, 1919.
After stating that section must be
read in connection with section 1, he
said the prohibition applied only to
those necesSarieS defined as such in
section 1. Then the opinion reads:
wearing apparel is necessary. If
section 4 had forbidden unreasonable
rates as to any necessaries, wearing
apparel, clearly necessary in the gen.
eral sense of the word, would have
been embraced therein even before the
amendment of 1919. The amendment,
therefore, would have been unneces-
sary. Congress did not so consider it,
and, therefore, by the amendment of
1919 expressly included it in the class
of necessaries that were to become
subject to the prohibition of the act.
EITHER the word necessaries, as used
In section 4, is free from any limitation
by reason of the definition in section 1,
in which case, even before the amend
ment of 1919, it would have included
wearing apparel, or it is to be limited
to those articles expressly stated in
section 1 as hereafter in this act called
necessaries. 1t is practically conceded,
and if it were not conceded it must be
held, especially in view of the amend
ment, that any necessaries as used in
section 4 does not include all neees-
saries"
Coming to the question of cloth as
differentiated from clothing, the opin-
ion says:
"Concededly bolts of cloth are not
in and of themselves wearing apparel.
Interpreted in the light of reason,
wearing apparel must be held to in
clude the material used to make up a
garment. In other words, that the leg
islative intent E to secure reasonable
prices in the distribution of wearing
apparel cannot possibly or perhaps rea-
sonably be carried out unless the linn
itations imposed upon the distribution
Of the made-up garment are extended
to the materials out of which they are
made"
But the opinion continued: IT can
find in the act no intent thus to con-
troll distribution of all or indeed any
Of the ingredients that enter into wear
ing apparel. Apt words to indicate
such an intent were readily available"
Charles E. Hughes represented the
defendants and the government was
represented by Special Assistants Fred
erick Bisgood and Herbert c. Smyth.
Attorney General Palmer also appear
ed in the proceedings.
Charles E. Hughes contended that
wooden cloth, which is the company's
product, is not wearing apparel as
specified and intended by the Lever
act under which the indictments were
found.