Oxford eagle. (Oxford, Lafayette Co., Miss.) 1876-current, 1920-12-02
They Are Sold BY The Government
To PrOfiteers At 25 Cd1ts Each,
But The Public, Who Originally
Bought And Paid For Them, Must
Be GOuged or Go Without.

A large concern in the city of New
York, according to admissions MADE
by it's own employees, purchased 300,-
900 raincoats from the government
at 25 cents each.
This concern then resold the rain
coats to chain raincoat stores at ten
times that amount, or $3.50 each,
thus making profit of 900 per
cent.
There was no question as to the
quality of the goods, because this
same concern had sold the raincoats
previously to the government at
profit above the cost of production.
These three paragraphs should give
food for serious thought to those
country newspapers who have per-
sistently stood in the way of govern
ment advertising, and there are still
in existence quite a number of pub
fishers who have taken the position
; that government advertising would
be subsidy to the press and that it
would be against the best interest of
the country. We would like to know
| if the country is served when hand
full of dirty profiteers are permitted
, to gouge the public and exploit the
assinity of the government when use
| full commodities could be spread wide
ly among the people and sold direct
by the government at an honest pro-
J fit if the people were approached
through the medium of newspaper
advertising.
This incident, however, is only one
of hundreds. Read on. In the mean
time let publishers of newspapers op-
posed to government advertising in
dulge in a little resoning. The gov
ernment of course, never bought
these raincoats at 25 cents each.
That is certain. Nor does their cheap
sale to this profiteer concern mean
that the public is served, because the
profteer who buys raincoat for 25
cents does not sell it to the public
for SO cents. Not at all. He first
sells it to the storekeeper for $3.50,
and the storekeeper in turn sells it
to the public at an advance of any
where from 100 per cent profit up.
Where would be the subsidy were
the government to advertise these
raincoats for sale to the people?
Suppose it charged $4 each for them.
1t could afford to do so and spend a
staggering volume of money to ad-
vertise if that were necessary, and
everyone would get the benefit. When
this story has been read and digested
publishers will see instead of adver-
tising being subsidy it would mean
that millions of dollars could be spent
on government advertising for the
disposal of supplies alone without it
being worthy of note; it would mean
that the government would take in
millions 6f dollars it now loses to re-
lieve the taxpayers and again that
the government would be performing
helpful service to the public in see
ing that the goods paid for by the
people in the first instance when not
needed were put back into the pub
lie hands instead of providing means
for swelling the pocketbooks of a
handful of grafters.
The Folly of Some Publishers.
The situation as developed shows
the government is weighted down
with inefficiency if not waterlogged
with graft. Beyond doubt it demon
strates that those publishers who
have helped develop this sort of situ-
alton by their refusal to fight for gov
ernment advertising have done incal-
culable harm to the people and to
their more alert fellow publishers.
They have allowed '"The American
Press" to make this fight for govern
ment advertising unaided by them
indeed, handicapped by their influ
ence brought to bear against gov
ernment advertising, an influence in
spired honestly perhaps, but due to