Evening star., 1934-06-28

OF the ". X. A., mdde IN tHe SECOND
report OF the DdrroD Reutelo Board,
tolloUs.
Herewith please find Mr. Richberg's
comment on the second Darrow re-
port, together with the reply of each
deputy concerned.
The report is even more inaccurate
and inconsequential than the first.
Perhaps the most significant fact
about the whole procedure is June
% press release by the board to the
effect that it has received 600 COM
plants in three months. We know
that some of these complaints are on
codes not yet approved and on pro-
visions not effective.
Yet, taken at its face, there are
more than 2,500,O0O concerns operat-
ing under codes. The ratio of COM
plant. therefore, is six out of every
$4,000, or 80 76/10O per cent of nom
complainants. This circumstance,
taken with study of the report it
self, adds confidence rather than mis-
givings of N. R. A
The report attacks the asbestos
code and bases the attack on pro-
visions never yet approved, and,
therefore, non-eXiStent. At the boards S
hearing only two members attended,
and one of them admitted that he
had never read the code itself but
only complaints about the code.
Use of Materials Hit.
which it says oppresses the little fell
low, is based on the fact that the
code does not permit any fellow-big
or little-to make bedding out of un-
sanitary secondhand material and
sell it to the poor as new.
One of its two attacks on the boot
and shoe code was that it did not
shorten the credit terms existing in
the industry prior to the code Over
violent protest of its Consumers Ad-
visory Board, N R. A tried to per-
Suade the industry to do this. These
long existing terms favor consumers
and better financed companies. A
change would favor companies with
less capital, but this is not the kind
OF provision N. R. A has any right to
impose.
The other of these two attacks was
on clause curtailing the number of
style shows, shoe fairs and other ex-
hibitions sponsored by associations
and in practice, obligatory, entailing
heavy fees. This is a racket said to
haUn Io ind n0n a
year. On these two charges the boot
and shoe code is viciously attacked.
AS an added flip is statement that
some 'unrevealed and mysterious
agency" changed the code The rec
ord shows this to be a fabrication out
of the whCle cloth.
In attacking the cement code, the
report says that it was seized by pow
erful interests to extend their pow er
and multiply their profits Profits
have declined under the code and
there has been no increase in price
The report says the Cement Institute
is steering committee of large COM
panies All but two out of l65 cement
mills are members, and each member
has one vote-regardless of size. One
of the two non-members is State
institution.
Denies Domination.
The reports statement that the
larger companies dominate the code
authority is the exact reverse of truth.
Out of seven members. four repre-
sent six mills with not over 4 per
cent of the production, and the larg-
est company has no representative at
all The ma jority of the electors of
the code authority represent 1l.3 per
cent of its productive capacity. The
code authority is in the control OF
small companies.
A statement that the cement code
did not include distributors is suf-
ficiently answered by the fact that 1t
is a manufacturers code. DiStribu-
tors are under another code. The
manufacturer could not have in
cluded them. The report implies that
there is ALLEGATION of business in the
industry by res son of the code. Such
is simply not the fact.
Because the President may be petit
toned to prevent construction of new
capacity, the board concludes that
control of the industry by large COM
panies is nov fairly complete"-a
statement which speaks for itself.
There have been only two such petit