Evening star., 1922-06-18
BY WILL p. KENNEDY.

MEXICAN business Is DelnS
~ purged of unfair practices pri-
~ marily for the interest OF the
ultimate consumer and second
| arily for the protection of the honest
| competitor in business. A, series of
| decisions in important cases by the
United States courts, including the
! Supreme Court, have sustained the
Federal Trade Commission. acting as
a new agency in the business world
for the protection of the public in
terest. Congress is now considering
amendments to the trade commission
act itself, in three particulars, which
would greatly strengthen the hands
| business arena.
Congress established a set of rules
for the Federal Trade Commission to
enforce. 1t has no power to fine
| man or corporation. has no power
to take away property. But If in
competition between various men in
industry one commits an offense
against fair competition, the Federal
Trade Commission has power to set
him back. 1t issues an order to cease
and desist.
| Acts Only to Serve
the Public Interest.
The commission takes no action un-
less the public is involved. 1t repre-
sents the public-the ultimate con-
| sumer. Incidentally, it protects the
competitors, but only where it is
for the benefit of the public. The
act is faulty, perhaps, in that it does
not define what fair competition is,
but prohibits unfair practices. So
that the commission acts on the prin-
ciple of What effect is this having
on the public?" Then it has set down
for its own guidance this definition:
Fair competition is that competition
which gives the consumer the ad-
vantages resulting from the compet-
ing for his purchases by two or more
competitors. in which he will get the
advantage of price, quality of goods
and service performed" Anything
that restricts that. artificially or
! otherwise. is unfair competition.
AS a matter Of fact, the Federal
| Trade Commission can issue COM
plants upon its own initiative, but
| this ii rarely does. Actions are usu-
ally started by one competitor or
business interest complaining against
| another. The Federal Trade Com
mission since 1915 has Investigated
about 5000 of these complaints, which
| are now coming III at the rate of
about 100 month. To date 1t has
| issued $50 complaints and 452 orders
\ to cease and desist. There are 263
ca ases still grinding in the commission
mill on which a decision has not yet
! been reached.
Sustained in Thirteen
Decisions by Courts.
| So the Federal Trade Commission
! is charting the sea of fair competi-
| tion by pointing out the reefs and
rocks of unfair competition. 1t has
1 been sustained in thirteen decisions
in the United States~courts, including
the Supreme Court of the United
States. In it's first case carried to
ithe> highest tribunal, the commission
was ruled against on a technically
of pleading, but not of fact. That
was in the Gratz case-the only one
on which the commission has been
idcfeated in the Supreme Court.
The briefest mention of four i'm
portant recent cases will serve To
| show how the courts have sustained
+! the Federal Trade Commission and
given it the strongest sort of stand
ing in the business world-the Win
sted Hosiery Company case. the suit
of the Aluminium Company OF
America, the Beech-Nut Packing
Company contest and in the Stafford
vs. Wallace case. involving the con-
stitutionality of the packers and
stockyards act.
The Winsted case has been COM
mented on more in the business
worlI than any for long time. Here
was a question of misbranding. oil
false advertising. 1t was argued thai
Misrepresentation or misdiscriptior
underwear trade that most dealers nc
longer accepted labels at their face
value. The Supre Court ruled thai
"a method inherently unfair does not
cease to be so because thoee com.
peted against have become aware OF
the wrongful practice" and that "a
substantial part of the public was
still misled by the use of the labels
Termed an Attempt
to Unscramble Business.
In the Aluminium case against the
Federal Trade Commission brought
before the circuit court of appeals
this recognized monopoly had swal'
lowed a company in Cleveland and
the Federal Trade Commission had
ordered them to separate. because the
Clayton act says that no company car
purchase the stock of competing
1TooIore nf tho