Evening star., 1934-07-22


Inc, and The Bronx Shoe Co, Inc,
all New York corporations; C3) the |
Purity Ice Company, Inc, and Feles |
Ferlise, president OF the company. OF
Lakeland. Fla
The ~ r. A in the rubber manu- |
facturerS case, has charged that the
companies involved have declined to
file with the Rubber Manufacturers
Association, Inc, as demanded by the
rubber manufacturers code, sched-
ule OF unit prices, discounts and
terms Of sale for their products-par-
ticularly waterproof and canvas rub
ber-soled footwear.
In the case of the shoe manufac-
turers. the N. r. A. charges that
the manufacturers have violated that
part of the code applying to them
which prohibits discounts in excess
OF per cent. and that the manu- |
facturers have given discounts run
ming from TO % per cent.
The Ice Company in Florida is
charged with going ahead and con-
structing a plant without ever asking
the code authority ana the N Il. a.
whether 1t could do 50. The ice man
ufacturers code provides that il any
individual or company desires TO es-
tabliSh additional ice production III
any given territory he must first eS-
tablish to the satisfaction of the ad-
minlstrator that public necessity and
convenience require such additional
ice-making capacity" The Purity Ice
Co. the complaint says, went right
ahead and constructed plant with
out seeking proper authority OF offer
ing to establish the fact that pub
lie necessity and convenience re-
quired the additional plant.
Ice Hearing August 3.
The Purity Ice Co. has been mott
fed by the Trade Commission that d
hearing viii be held Ill their case on
August 3. AT that time the company
Will be compelled TO appear and show
cause why cease and desIst" order
should not be issued against them.
The shoe manufacturers are given
until August 10 file answer to the
complaint against them. The rubber
manufacturers are to be given a
hearing July 81 at the office OF the
Federal Trade Commission, and they
must file their answers to the COM
plant against them at that time
Should the Federal Trade Commits
sion decide in favor OF the National
Recovery Administration in any or
all .! these cases. il Is presumed
that the manufacturers then viii APP
peal 10 the courts. II on the ether
hand the commission decides that the
complaints against the manufacturers
are not well taken, and that the real
complaints lie against The codes and
the ~ r. A. the N. r. A. is expected
TO take the matter 10 the courts
Senator William Z. Borah Of Idaho
Senator Nye Of North Dakota ana
other critics Of the n. r. A. have III
sisted that It's administration and the
codes OF fair competition are leading
to monopOlies and viii eventually
prove great burden 10 The general
consumer and VIII be destructive OF
the small business man. III the cases
now TO come before the Fedora! Trade
Commission these charges are likely u
be we'll ventilated knorts viii be
made 10 present facts to prove that
the big concerns engaged IN manu-
featuring control the code authorizes
and the codes IN their own interest.
The Trade Commission may have to
decide whether that section Of the
national industry recovery act which
SuspenoS the operation oi the anti
trust laws IS to be given precedence
or whether the Borah amendment to
that act which provides that such
code or codes shall not permit mono
poles or monOpolStIc practices has
the right OF way This Borah amend
ment Is found III section Of the act.
Suspension of Laws.
The suspension of the antitrust
laws Is provided III section } and reads
as follows;
While this title Industrial Recoy-
eryl Is IN effect and Tor 60
days thereafter. any code agreement.
or license approved, prescribed or is
sued and IN effect under this title.
and any action complying With the
provisions thereof taken during such
period, shall. be exempt from the pro-
visions OF the antitrust laws OF the
United States
Senator Borah has sought III vain
so tar to repeal THIS language IN sec
ton SuSpendIng the operation Of the
antitrust laws. He insists shat it Is
IN conflict really with the proposition
that none Of the codes shall permit
monopolieS or monopolsuc practices.
Critics Of the n r A insist that
the ice industry code, Tor example.
clearly fosters monopoly. When
code takes away the right Of any per
son or company TO oulld new plant
and no such plant can be constructed
| without obtaining the approval OF
those already IN the business. they
say the ground Is all laid for mono
poly.
II is reported that complaint has
been made to the 4sderal Trade Com