Gilpin observer., 1920-06-03
CONGRESS TO BLAME
FOR HIGH COST OF LIVING
Fail to Pass Legislation Advocat-
ed by President Wilson to Curb
the PrOfiteers.


The present congress may be
indicted fairly as congress of
incompetence on the cost of liv-
ing issue. 1t may be indicted as
congress which has been negli-
gent of duty and thoughtless of
the welfare of the people. The
government departments, as for
example, the department of JUS
tice may be indicted for incom-
potency on the same grounds.
What has been more ludicrous in
American public life during the
past year than the announcement
of the department of justice to the
effect that it has abandoned its
high cost of living campaign be-
cause of the high cost of the cam
paign?
On August 8, 1919, President
Wilson appeared before the con-
gress of the United States and de-
livered message dealing with
the high cost OF living. Upon that
occasion the president made spec
ific suggestions to congress, all of
which congress listened to with
real or assumed respect, but to
none of which congress paid any
attention thereafter. The presi-
dents recommendations at that
time may be summarized as fol-
lows:
Extension of the life of the
Lever food control act to the date
of ratification of the treaty of
peace.
Extension of the scope of the
Lever act to include fuel, food
and clothing.
Amendment of the Lever act to
provide penalties for profiteering.
Enactment of a law limiting
the period during which goods
may be held in cold storage; also
law requiring that goods be
marked with the prices at which
they were placed in cold storage.
Enactment of a law requiring
that all goods destined for inter-
state commerce be marked with
the price at which they left the
hands of the producer.
Enactment of a law to license
and regulate corporations engaged
in interstate commerce in order
to prevent profiteering.
Enactment of law to control
security issues to prevent specu-
lation.
Seven measures were suggested
by the president but congress
gave no heed. Of course congress
might argue that these measures
had no merit, but if congress were
inclined to argue to that effect
and if it were sincere, it would
have produced measures of its
own making as substitutes. This
it has not done. 1t has done moth
ing. Continuing in the same
message, the president presented
the immediate policy of the gov
ernment in it's efforts to deal with
profiteering. The president real
lied the gravity of the situation.
He realized the menace to public
welfare presented by the profit
eers. He declared it to be the pol
icy of the government:
To sell at cost stocks of surplus
food and clothing in possession of
the government.
To fix a limit on wheat exports
and foreign credits.
To bring about the removal Of
food from storage so far as exist
ing laws allowed and prosecute
those engaged in boarding.
To prosecute those seeking to
control the supplies and prices in
contravention of the Lever act.
There was for a time brisk
sale of government goods to the
consuming public and the consum-
ing public benefited greatly there
by. This practice has been dis
continued for reasons not alto
gether clear. The benefit lasted
only while the sales of govern
mcnt goods continued, and since
this was temporary and restricted
to the zones in which the sales
took place.
There seems to have been no
great energy'put behind the policy
calling for removal of food from
storage, for no effects of such a
policy have been felt.
Prosecution of those seeking to