Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-01-21

was approximately the same as now.
whereas. at the time this respondent
was made a party to this proceeding
its recognition list contained 522 names.
In other words, during the period of
this proceeding, the American News
paper Publishers Association has ex-
tended recognition to more than ITO
advertising agencies not members of
respondent American Association of Ad-
verttStng Agencies, while on the other
hand. the membership of said respond
ent American Association of Advertis-
ing Agencies today is one less than at
the time this respondent was. made q
part to this proceeding. :"
1T is an unconteSted fact, found by
the examiner and admitted by the at
torney for the commission, that for
many years prior to 1917 the great bulk
Of national advertising placed In daily
newspapers was placed in such news
papers by advertising agencies for the
accounts of their clients, the adver-
tiSers.
Publishers Dealt Directly"
''It is also an uncontested fact that
for long period of years there were
certain national advertisers who dealt
directly with publishers of daily news
is equally uncontested that during the
last 80 years the number Of such ma
tional advertisers dealing directly with
newspaper publishers has materially
decreased.
Likewise, during the period of 80
years prior to the bringing of this COM
plant, the commission paid by pub
fishers to agencies for furnishing ad-
Vertising has been, as found by the ex-
aminer, practically stabilized at IS per
cent, with an additional per cent for
cash. Therefore, as was pointed out
to the commission in briefs and
arguments, long prior to the bringing
of this complaint and long prior
spiracy or combination between re-
spondents is alleged to have started, the
business of handling national advertis-
ing for advertisers who desired to have
1t placed in daily newspapers, had been
developed into channels which, both
1t placed In daily newspa pers> had been
proved to be to the best interests not
only of the publishers but to the great
majority Of advertisers as well as bona
f1de agencies.
The issue squarely presented itself
as to whether or not the Federal Trade
Commission, in q proceeding brought
approximately 10 years after it was
created. would upset a sound prac-
tice, built up during almost half
century OF experience prior to its
creation.
Commercial Bribery CHARGED.
Stated In another way, he said, the
precise issue was whether the commits
sion, "in face of numerous Federal and
State statutes condernning rebating or
commercial bribery" would seek ito
fasten that curse upon one of the
greatest industries in America"
The only purpose Of the proceeding,
In so far as newspaper publishers were
concerned, he added, was to compel
them to grant rebates to any advertiser
who desired to transact business upon
the basis of rebating, the method of
making the rebates possible being merely
incidental. He pointed out that the COM
mission had condemned such rebating
in trade practice conferences held in
many industries. 1t has now con-
demned 1t in the newspaper publishing
industry. by its action in dismisSing the
complaint
that publishers had conspired or COM
bined to Ak the rates of advertising or
their charges for subscriptions, or had
sought to restrict either the volume of
advertising published by daily news
papers throughout the country or the
interstate movement of commodities in
such papers.
Associated with Mr.. Hanson as coun-
sci for the newspaper publishers were
Robert c. Beattie and Robert G. Morris
The attorney for the advertising agencies
was Clark McKercher of New York
James S. Finlay of Chattanooga. Tenn.
represented the Southern publishers
Counsel for the Trade Commission was
Eugene w, Burr,