Evening star., 1934-06-28
suits only from following their ad-

suits only from following their ad-
vice.
Even though the first report Of the
Review Board was productive Of heat
rather than light, all concerned should
be pleased to know that the board
is beginning to see the light. Per-
haps, before its labors are concluded,
the board will furnish its answer
to the knotty question as to how in
dustry should be operated to pro-
duce nigh wages for labor, low prices
! for consumers and at the same time
protect those small enterprises which
can only survive by paying low wages
and charging high prices. The N. r.
| answer to this question.
The detailed findings and recon-
! mendations Of the review board follow
its previous practice of avoiding any
restrained judicial comment.
l. Because of some confusion con-
corning a proposed merchandising
,, plan in the asbestos code, brake lining
division, the board finds that the
existence of the code is rather worse
than farcical and not worth sus-
tanning" The fact is that the
merchandising plan" has not yet
been approved-and any plan which
may be approved to prevent destruc-
| tive price cutting would give a needed
! protection for small enterprises.
Designed to Prevent Fraud.
2 Because of a prohibition in the
! bedding code against the use of sec
| ond-hand material (Which may be
! insanitary), the board emotionally
defends the right of the poor people
to have bedding made with second
! hand goods. There is nothing to pre-
! vent poor people from buying second
hand bedding and having 1t reno
vated, but the code is designed to
prevent selling secondhand articles
as new-a fraud practiced partic-
ularly upon the poor
3. Because of a definition inserted
in the boot and shoe manufacturing
code to define the date from which
a discount can be allowed (Which
would otherwise be undefined), the
board reports that "monopoloStic prac-
ticeS in this industry are acutely op-
| preSsive of small enterprises" Such
an insertion of a necessary defini-
ton is described as practice oi
Surreptitiously altering codes. which
is most unfair, unreasonable, arbi-
! trary and autocratic and
clothes the administrator with the
| perilous power of an economic
satrap." Thus a very small fly is
crushed by a landslide of adjectives
| The fact is that the code as altered
was submitted by the trade associa-
ton and received its assent before
approval The charges of the board
are simply untrue.
| 4. Because of minimum wage oil
SO cents an hour for men and 80 \
cents for women. fixed in the wood
| echoes the Wailing of the small
manufacturer in the South. who be-
fore the code paid an average wage
of % cents per hour for men and
Is cents per hour for women" Here
the board presents a sad but typica
example Of the oppression of small
enterprises" in being compelled To
pay between $3.50 and $500 a day
for the labor of adult men and
women.
Takes Up Cement Attack.
5. The board charges that the
Cement Institute. having drafted a
co6e. then turned a part of itself
mostly representative of larger COM
! panies. into the code authority to
! administer the code" The fact is
that four members. a majority of the
code authority, represent only per
| cent of the producing capacity of the
industry. two of these being exec
utives of companies having not more
than two mills and two others repre-
senting one plant each.
The board recommends that "the
basing point evil should be eliminated
from this and other industries" The
| fact is the code contains no provi-
| sion concerning basing points, nor is
any one subject to the code prohibited
from quoting (. o. b. mill prices
Other equally inaccurate or mislead-
| ing criticisms of the board are dealt
with in the detailed report of the
! division administrator.