Evening star., 1934-11-23
The Substitute for N. R. A. -?

The substitute for N. K. A.!
Donald Richberg, in his position as
executive director of the National
Emergency Council and as current
holder of the less formal but ade-
quately descriptive title of the Presi-
dents No. l man in Washington, is
doing good job of cementing newly
formed ties between the administra-
ton and the business world. His
speech of Wednesday night before
the Associated Grocery Manufacturers
of America was additional, construc-
tive evidence of the administration s
renewed attempt to provide that
common ground on which those work.
tng for recovery may meet.
Mr.. Richberg's latest address con-
tanned significant hint as to future
recovery legislation which the next
Congress must consider in preparing
for the expiration, on June 16, 1885,
of the National Industrial Recovery
Act. 1t is unfortunate that his at
tempted Qualification of section IA
was not as definite as his views on
other controversial features of N. R. A.
Correcting what he considers the
widespread misconception of the
original purpose of antitrust laws,
which was to preserve and not to end
competition, Mr.. Richberg points to
the fact that enforcement of these
laws has in some cases prevented not
only the agreements necessary for
intelligent competition, but even the
means of intelligent competition. And
OF this result, Mr.. Richberg says:
1t Is preposterous idea that in the
present industrial world men of COM
mon interest should not be permitted
freely to exchange information, to
discuss policies and generally to i'm
prove their abilities to operate their
enterprises in the way most effective
to serve public needs.
But in such associations, Mr.. Rich
berg contends, there is always present
the tendency to seek agreements
limiting fair competition, which lead
eventually to price-f1xing, repugnant
and intolerable to a democratic people
who will insist that such a system
either be stopped or placed under
public control.
Mr.. Richberg's idea is that trade
associations be permitted to "do busi-
ness openly" and to submit the in
formation on their activities to "a
body which might combine some of
the functions and authorities of the
administration of N. r. A. and the
Federal Trade Commission. Ger
tain competitive activities could be
legalized, and others arbitrarily for
hidden. But in what Mr.. Richberg
has called the twilight zone of in
terpretation," national code admin
istration would be authorized to sane
tion or prohibit certain actions, with
the decisions of the authority review
able "by an appeal for a declaratory
judgment by a court of competent
jurisdiction"
Mr.. Richberg is apparently pointing
the way for liberalizing both the anti
trust laws and the annoying med
dlesomeness of substitute N. r. Aisms,
seeking at the same time to preserve
the idea of f-government of industry
with necessary restraint or outlawry
Of monopolistic tendencies.
1t is interesting to note that one i'm
portant feature of his plan-the re-
view of decisions of the Code Author
ity by appeal for "declaratory judg-
ment"-has in effect been provided
for, but little used. An act of the
past Congress amended the Judicial
Code to provide that ''in cases of ac-
tual controversy" Federal courts may,
on petition, declare the rights of the
petitioners; in other words, to declare
whether contemplated action is legal
before, and not after, the commission
of the act. This reform in judicial
procedure, In use for many years in
England and for four centuries in
Scotland, had been advocated by the
American Bar Association and others.
Its importance now, especially in the
light Of Mr.. Richberg's proposed New
Deal in regulated self-government of
industry, is manifest.