Evening star., 1934-11-20
Hieh Courts Milk Decision
Stirs Price-Fixing Debate

Satisfaction over the fact that the
law of competition is still in effect is
reflected in newspaper comment on
the decision of the United States
Supreme Court upholding the right
of the New York State Milk Control
Board to fix minimum prices to be
paid producers for their milk.
The opinion" says the Philadelphia
Evening Bulletin, dealt merely with
the power of the milk authority. under
the law. to fix a minimum price to
be paid by dealers to producers, the
petitioner having been threatened with
revocation of his license to carry on
milk business because he had paid
less than the fixed minimum for his
supply, retention of the license being
permitted If he made specified
deficiency payment to his producers.
In substance the Supreme Court held
that the case presented did not qualify
as involving any violation Of the four
teenth amendment, which guarantee,
the court said. did not protect against
the hazards of competition. The New
York Milk Control prescribes minimum
prices: maximum prices are deter
mined, actually, by the competitive Sit
uation."
That the prices fixed are minima
and not maxima," according to the
New York Sun, was point of critical
importance in Justice Cardozo's view
There was no analogy between the
milk dealers condition and that of
public service utility protecting
against maximum prices which did not
permit 1t to earn a fair return. In
such situation the utility must break
the law or bleed to death. But the
milk dealer was free to raise the price
at which he sold his goods"
THE essential part of the decision,'
declares the Texarkana Gazette,
would seem to be these words: The
fourteenth amendment does not pro-
tect a business against the hazards Of
competition In other words, Leg
islature has right to use the operat-
ing costs of an industry's more eff
cient members as a yardstick in
reaching fair price level" The Jersey
Observer feels that the decision
points the way for the State to pro-
tect the producer by guaranteeing him
fair compensation" while the Water
town IN. " Daily Times concludes
that it should bring definite convic-
ton to the dealers that the milk law
cannot be overturned or sidestepped. "
The Wall Street Journal directs atten-
ton to the fact that "the constitu-
tional amendment against taking ones
property without due process Of law
still stands undisturbed by the court
in this present case"
"The challenge to the validity of
the milk control act thus disposed
Of" states the Brooklyn Times Union,
"is the second test of the legislation
to reach the highest court. Last
Winter the court by a 5-to-4 decision
affirmed the validity of the act in
a contest brought by a Rochester
storekeeper, who was penalized for
giving away a scent loaf of bread
with a purchase of two quarts of milk
at the price fixed by law for the milk
alone" The Rochester Times Union
offers the judgment: "It rather looks
as If Justice Cardozo (who delivered
the opinion) thinks the right of the
ultimate consumer comes ahead even
of the right of any particular business
enterprise, be it big or little, to do
business at profit"
The New Haven Journal Courier
feels that the decree may intensity
competition" while the Grand Rapids
Press finds assurance that "the law
Of competition still is in effect" and
the New London Day assumes that is
"emphatically upholds the theory of
competitive business" The Dirming-
ham News suggests that perhaps the