The Washington times., 1922-02-22

EHlOTCeHlenL ny manufacturers VI
standard resale prices is rendered
practically impossible from legal
standpoint by the decision of the
Supreme Court in the Beech-Nut
Packing Company case. The bene-
fetal effect of that decision upon
retail trade and its service in the
public interest has been argued
holly. 1t remains a disputed ques-
ton, despite the courts opinion.
Canadian Expedient.
In Canada, an attempt has been
made to answer it in another fash
ion. The Retail Merchants Associa-
ton of Eastern Ontario, in conven-
ton at Kingston recently, con-
demned the arbitrary enforcement
of price maintenance by manufac-
turers and suggested that before
any manufacturer fixes retail sell
ing price, he should submit the
same TO committee of the asso-
citation in order that the interests
of the retailers may be considered.
A request to manufacturers in
the United States for similar &C.
ton may be superfluous in view of
the Supreme Courts decision, but
it is a question that well may be
made the subject of serious discus
sion. Adopting, for the purposes Of
argument. the agreement on a fixed
resale price between manufacturer
and retail merchant may be pro-
ductive OF more benefit to all con
cerned than no system of price
maintenance whatever, the question
only remains as to whether such
procedure would be legal.
The decision of the Supreme Court
forbids enforcement of price main
tenance by cooperative methods in
which the manufacturer and its dis
tributors, customers and agents un.
dertake to prevent others from OBJ
tanning the company's products,
who sell them at less than the prices
designated. These methods include
the reporting of dealers who do not
observe such resale prices by other
customers and agents employed for
that purpose and blacklisting and
boyCotting them in order to pre-
vent them from obtaining the
products of the company. The court
also condemns the utilization of any
other equivalent cooperative means
OF accomplishing the maintenance
of prices fixed by the manufacturer.
Not Competitors.
When agreement between manu-
facturer and retailer, however. and
not a threat of boycott, effects the
maintenance OF prices. it is ques-
toned whether such action is aC.
tionable under the Supreme Courts
decision. 1t would appear that IL
cannot be considered suppression OF
competition i'm restraint of trade as
the manufacturer and retailer in
OUR present system of distribution
are not competitors in the same
market.
There would be no violent means
for attaining the object sought. the
blacklist and the boycott which.
when accomplished by the Co-opera.
ton of other retailers. constitutes re-
siraint of connection. as il interfereS
with the relationship between retail
merchants selling in the sam" mar
ket. Neither would intent to mo-
nOpoly rest upon the manufacturer.
Under the decision of the supreme
Court. he may suggest that retailers
observe fixed resale price, but he
cannot force them to do SO.
Permissible Plan.
If, as the result of such sueges-
ton. retailers agree voluntariir to
stabl;sh a standard price for that
manufacturers products. il would
not constitute an Illegal act, provided
that such retail merchants did not at
tempt to enforce upon other retailers
the maintenance of the agreed price
or cooperate with the manufacturer