Evening star., 1934-05-21
RICEBERG CHARGES DARROW REPORT
is BASED ON PREJUDICED TESTIMONY
Small Businesses
Saued by Codes;
He Contends.


enterprises in the industry, and the
board does not report a complaint
from them.
The board may be able to magnify
very small volume of consumer COM
plants against the code into evidence
OF monopolistic oppression, but by no
stretch of the Imagination can it pro-
duce evidence Of many and bitter
complaints from small enterprises"
within the industry that they are
subjected to monopolistic control.
AS matter Of fact, the small en-
terprises within the industry have de-
uged the N. r. A. with protests
against changing the code and with
arguments in favor Of its continuing
operation.
n. R. A. Also Critical.
The N. r. A. has been from the
beginning critical OF the price pro-
visions in the steel code, including
the set-up Of the basing point sys-
TEN, the inclusion of transportation
charges in quoted prices, the waiting
period Of 10 days before prices are
made effective and other provisions
OF the code which have been criti-
cized by the Federal Trade Commits
sion, criticisms which are re-hashed
and garbled in the report OF the re-
view board.
The board adds nothing whatSo-
ever to the information available to
the N. r. A. and previously publicly
discussed by the N. r. A. concerning
these provisions. But the board in its
ignorance Of the complicated opera
tions Of this industry has produced a
certain amount of misinformation
which will not help in working out
an intelligent revision Of the steel
code in the public interest.
The board, for example, reports
that the code, in providing that prices
shall not be effective until 10 days
after filing. is tantamount to an
agreement on the part Of all members
to adhere to the schedule of prices
for at least period Of 10 days after
the same are known" The fact is,
there IS no such agreement or prac-
tice.
Check Provided.
A price filed is not effective for 10
days, but since another price may be
filed the next day, the first price may
be only effective for one day. Tho
board reports that under the code, the
code authority may declare a price to
be unfair during the Today waiting
period.
The board reports that under the
fNNk 49, l.
code cannot quote any price other
than his own baSing point price,
which, according to the board, violates
the competitive policy of the Clayton
act in not permitting a steel producer
lin good faith to meet competition"
This conclusion is based on igno-
rance of the explicit provision of the
steel code which permits any produ-
Ger to quote not only the prices which
he has filed for his own basing points,
but also to quote the prices filed by
any other producer at another basing
point.
Code Quoted.
The code reads, schedule Z, sec
ton 8:
The published base price Of each
such member for any produce Except
standard tee rails Of more than so
pounds per yard, angle bars and rail
joints for any basing point for such
product other than that or those shown
in the list Of base prices so filed by
such member shall be deemed to be
the lowest base price for such product
AZ 0fh hoe iva vr,1,ie zk,nI
be shown in the list of base prices
filed by any other member of the code
and then in effect"
Under the foregoing provision q
member of the industry can meet a
price made by his competitor in any
part of the country. His competition
depends solely upon his ability to meet
the transportation costs Of getting his
products into the market.
Transportation costs are an newt
able restraint upon any free competi-
ton. There are many objections to
the price provisions of the steel code
which have been considered by the
N. r. A. on the basis of accurate
knowledge Of those provisions and ac-
curate reports concerning their opera
ton.
Worse Than Worthless"
The Review Board has only muddied
the waters by superficial criticisms
based on few days of casual study Of
a complicated industrial situation and
upon a utter lack of adequate knowl-
edge of the facts. The conclusions Of
s,,oh q roy1orf ara uyorea than u,ort hla.s
and when expressed in the rhetorical
language of the report are obvious
appeals to passion and prejudice.
The N. R. A. has been giving an ex-
tended trial to the provisions Of the
steel code under close observation with
continuing recommendations for their
improvement. based upon accurate
knowledge of the facts and expert ad-
vice as to measures desirable to protect
the public interest.
The Review Board afforded no OPP
portunity to the N r. A. representa-
tives who had been working for
months upon the steel code and who
had participated in its administration
to furnish the Review Board with the
vast amount of information available.
which had been gathered by the N. r.
A. which had been expressly omitted
from consideration by the Federal
Trade Commission In its report, and to
which the Review Board paid no at
tention whatsoever. A Government
investigation and report of such q
character simply makes q mockery Of
public service.
One Good Recommendation.
Ice: The one recommendation made
by the board for the improvement of
this code is the elimination of article
XI, which limits additional EGGPLANT
construction to cases where the ad-
ministrator finds that public necessity
and convenience require such addi-
tional productive capacity. The board
incorrectly suggests in its report that
an application for permission to con-
struct additional facilities must be
made to an industrial committee, al
legged to be composed of representa-
tiveS OF large enterprises.
In the first place, few small enter
prises in this industry have been
v,f1Iinr fN "a %ha