Evening star., 1934-05-21

DONALD RICHBERG.
Underwood Photo.
records available to the board.
The code was assented to in writing
by 9,039 members of the industry.
Twenty-one complaining witnesses
were heard by the board, including
Is out of $500 theater operators. In
contrast to IA hours and 20 minutes
Of hearings" by the board, N. R. A.
spent over 1000 hours on the draft
ing OF the code, heard 206 witnesses
and obtained a code acceptable, not
only to the industry, but approved by
all the advisory boards of N. r. A.
representing industry, labor, con-
sumers, economic research and law.
False Testimony"
The board acted solely on the basis
Of disorderly mess OF unsworn and
largely false testimony Of a few NAL
contents (nany Of them discredited by
previously illegal practices), covering
only out of 288 subdivisions of the
code. and arrived at sweeping conclu-
sions upon the entire code founded on
obvious ignorance of the code, Of the
industry and the law.
The detailed analysis OF the boards
action shows conclusively that the in
vestigation was carried on with utter
disregard for fair play and that the
conclusions of the board are unworthy
Of the slightest consideration.
Any one adequately informed con-
corning the industry could learn with
out difficulty, as is evident from the
volume of support given the code and
the small volume Of complaint. that
the code Is Of incalculable benefit to
the small enterprises of the industry
and affords great relief from the mo-
nopolistic effects Of the copyright laws
and other property rights which give
legal advantages Of an oppressive
character to large enterprises. which
they are required under the code to
forego to considerable extent.
A return to the savage, wolfish"
competition advocated by the board
would mean simply an enlargement of
monopolistic power sanctioned by law.
Brief Rejected.
The refusal of the board even to
receive correct information is shown
in its rejection Of the brief filed by
seven producing distributing COM
panies, The board specifically agreed
to the presentation of testimony
THROUGH fk1ic hriaf-Sir1no o1 nf
timony was unSworn-and then dis
regarded it on the announced basis
that since these major producers-dis-
tributors could have appeared and
testified" their brief should not be
given serious consideration.
Thus, by giving no attention to the
vast files Of information of the N. r. A.
or the principal testimony offered in
support Of the code, and by refusing
to listen to the exceptionally well in
formed deputy administrator. the
board was able to arrive at findings
contrary to fact and conclusions con-
trary to any intelligent opinion.
Coal Criticism Trivial"
Retail Solid Fuel: In regard to this
industry. the board received a protest
in behalf of a group of associations
from metropolitan New York not affi-
lated with the National Retail Coal
Merchants Association. who were
sponsors of the code. The protesting
groups admitted they had representa-
tions; admitted no unfair action had
been taken to date, but they were pro-
testing in fear of what might happen.
In the absence of any evidence OF
any oppression and in view of the
effort Of the N r. A. to set up a
truly representative code authority
in an industry only partially organ
lied, the criticism Of this code Is
trivial and captious.
Steel: The report of the board Is
based largely upon report made by
the Federal Trade Commission in
partial compliance with Senate reso-
luton l66 concerning the operation
or possible effects Of few provisions
of the steel code. The attached COM
mentary on that report Of the Fed
eral Trade Commission answers al
most entirely the re-hash of the
views of the Federal Trade Commis-
sion presented by the Review Board.
Typical Mistakes" Cited.
In addition, however, attention
should be called to some of the typical
mistakes of the board in its hasty
review of a complicated code and a
highly technical industry, regarding
which the members of the board had
no previous knowledge and acquired
no perceptible understanding.
At the outset the board sought to
prove a control of the Code Authority,
the Iron and Steel Institute, through
voting arrangements, which, in the
language of the board. leave the
small enterprise at the mercy Of the
large"
The utter inaccuracy Of the facts
and conclusions Of the board con-
cerning this comparatively simple
matter is shown by the calculation
of the board that out Of $4,000 votes
1852 would be cast by United States
Steel.
AS a matter Of fact, the total votes
of1icially tabulated are 1882, of which
the subsidiaries and afiliates of the
United States Steel cast 1886. On the
basis Of the Review Boards calcula-
ton, the invoiced value Of the United
States Steel products would be over
$4,000, ,000, 900. whereas for 1888 they
were $l7,50o,000.
The board complains that the board
Of directors of the Steel Institute.
constituting the Code Authority, "ad-
ministers 1t in the interest OF the
larger companies in control Of the
Iron and Steel Institute"
Is Per Cent Representation.
The fact is that on the board OF
directors the representation Of United
States Steel Is l3 per cent (although
1t Is entitled to IS per cent voting
power). The representation Of Beth
lehem Is per cent, although entitled
to 8 per cent voting power, and the
remaining 80 per cent of the member
ship is distributed among 81 COM
panies.
The inaccuracy Of the boards re-
port Is indicated in its statement that