Evening star., 1934-05-21

outset seems to nave been the pur-
pose of the larger manufacturers, who
made the code. One OF the small
competitors made application to the
code authority and then to the ad-
ministrator for permission to enlarge
its plant facilities In accordance with
an increased demand for its product
The application was referred to
committee OF five OF the larger manu-
facturers, who negatived it. not hesi-
tating to say in their finding that
ANY increase in production of flake
ice would be further used in at
tempted competition with the prod
uct of existing ice plants" which is.
on the whole, the most candid state
ment of the attitude of the large en-
terprises we have yet encountered.
Article vi of the ice code provides
that there ,shall be no establishing
of additional lice production, storage
or tonnage" unless the administrator
shall be satisfied that public neces-
sity and convenience require such ex-
tension.
Failed in Court Test.
1t is to be noted that in the State
of Oklahoma the Legislature enacted
a similar provision and the United
States District Court. United States
Court of Appeals and United States
Supreme Court successfully held the
provision to be unconstitutional.
1t is clearly monopolistic, oppres-
sive and should be eliminated from
the code. An interesting commentary
upon it seems to lie in the fact that
after the hearing by this board, the
application before referred to as hav-
ing been rejected by the code author
ity was later granted by the same au-
thority
Another phase OF the business was
revealed in what is called cash and
carry 1t appeared that in Chicago
the situation had been complicated by
the actions of certain INSCRIPTIONS
dealers, who took advantage of the
code to further their own interests.
When a small dealer or peddler
signed the code (without which sig
nature he could not obtain ice) a
placard was handed him that he must
affix in plain sight in his wagon, an
nouncing his prices, which had been
fixed at go cents a hundred pounds
1t was testified to that II he sold ice
for less than this price he was un-
able to purchase it thereafter.
Lower Price to Carriers.
The Icemen's Union Of Chicago and
many small dealers and peddlers Of
ice there. complained that the large
ice producers had established the
cash and carry system, by which they
furnished ice at 40 cents a hundred
pounds to customers who would them
selves carry it away from the plat
forms, whereas the peddlers and
those who delivered 1t at residences
and stores must charge so cents a
hundred pounds for 1t.
The representative OF the code
authority denied that this differen-
tial had been instituted by the code.
1t appeared to have been made under
the Commission of Arbitration and
Appeals, a body similar to the insti-
tute In other industries, by which
the industry Is virtually controlled.
This commission seemed to consist
of eight members. of whom seven
were large producers of ice. The Ice
mems Union and small dealers and
peddlers were not represented upon it.
Findings: 1t Is the opinion of this
board that the code adopted for this
industry should be amended in &C
cordance with the attached brief.
Cleaning and Dyeing Trade: The
above entitled matter came on to be
heard before the National Recovery
Board on the 9th day of April. AID.
1884. at 1890 o'clock am. upon the
complaint of numerous parties repre-
senting small, medium and large size
enterprises who were represented by
several witnesses at the hearing, and
appearing at the hearing were several
persons representative of the various
sizes of the trade in support of the
code, and N. j. Harkness, chairman
of the code authority.
Two Classes of Trade.
From the evidence adduced at the
above hearing the following findings
are submitted:
Findings: /. That the trade Is
divided into two classes based on the
service given and not on the size OF
the enterprise. to-wit:
(a) Cash and carry.
(b) Call and deliver.
2. That there has been an utter
disregard of the price provisions OF
the code since its inception, making
it impossible for the board to de-
termine the effect of the provision
of the code, setting the same price
for the two services set out above.
8. That the small enterprises are
represented in both classes of service.
4. That the price provision in the
code does not take into consideration
cost.
Competition Excessive.
Recommendations: /. We find no
monopolistic practices in this indus
try. If there is any oppression of the
small enterprise, 1t does not result
from a control by monopoly, but Is
result of excessive competition.
2. This industry Is composed of
many small units with no means Of
integration or affiliation with one an
other. The nature of the business
is local.
8. The status of the industry and
the condition of the code with refer
ence to its enforcement are such, that
the board feels no appreciable results
could be obtained by amending the
code.
Bituminous Coal: Monopolistic prac-
tices are marked in this industry be-
cause the code was made and its
operation directed by agencies con-
nected with the larger coal companies
to their advantage and the disadvan-
tage of the small enterprises.
Price Method Opposed.
Testimony was presented to show
that the same price had been fixed
for coal that contained a large per-
centage of sulphur and for coal that
contained but a small percentage of
this same substance; whereas the
practical value of the coal was di-
CONTINUED on Eleventa Pase.)