Evening star., 1934-06-28

tions, and N. r. A. denied both before
they ever got to the President.
There is a similar innunendo about
basing points in the industry-but
the code provides for no basing points.
So much for the attack on the
cement code-not one accurate or
consequential statement to support a
violent attack and conclusion of
monopoly.
Answers Coffee Attack.
In attacking the coffee code the
board found that it limits loss
leaders" This is solely for the pro-
lection Of small enterprise and is
generally so regarded. A firm which
prepares coffee adulterants complained
that its business was hurt by a pro-
vision requiring that the presence of
adulterantS be stated on coffee labels.
The board proposed an amendment to
accommodate him and intimated that
large manufacturers are not required
to show the presence of chicory. The
board should read the pure food and
drugs act The code also requires a
similar showing.
The report on the retail code i'm
puteS sinister control of N. r. A.
itself and implies corruption on the
sole charge that provisions of the
code were "surreptitiously' changed
at the behest of some great interest.
AS I have repeatedly and publicly
said (both at the time the code was
approved and since), wrote the word
"inaccurately" into the advertising
clause so that it would not prevent
an advertiser from telling the truth.
The change was in my handwriting,
was called to your attention at the
time you signed the code, was reported
at once to the industry, was my deci-
sion on a point over which there had
been weeks of wrangling and on
which l and more than one N. r. A.
department had devoted hours OF
study and hearing, and the change
was we'll known to the Code Com
mittee.
This charge is pure nonsense and
like the one discussed in the next
paragraph. reduces to the fact that
the industry did not get all 1t
asked for
1t is also asserted that the loss
leader limitation provision that the
industry sought was surreptitiouSly
changed. That is not true. 1t was
suspended, and you will personally
recall the hours of argument with
various cabinet members and other
Government officials that we had
about it in your Office before we could
all agree on an acceptable provision
which was finally accorded.
Calls Charges Typical.
On these two sinister and sur
reptitious" circumstances alone, the
most scathing charges of bad falth
! and improper influence are brought
It is typical of the unfairness. un-
truth, temper. spirit and utter WORTH
lessness of these reports.
| The lumber code report Is simply
a succession of disagreements OF the
Review Board with N. R. AS deter
mination on several debatable eco
nomic issues. The Review Board S
function is to protect the little fellow.
Nowhere, in disagreeing with N. r. A,
does the Review Board show where
! the provisions it complains about hurt
I the little fellow.
! The records show that the code has
restored 5000 little fellows to business
and saved many thousands more. Inc
review report addressed several other
| vexed economic questions to which the
N. r. A.. the Federal Trade Commls-
| sion and other departments, have de-
voted months of constant study and
are still studying. The Review Board
tosses them off cavalierly after hear
! ing a few malcontents for few
/ hours. We are still seeking the light
on some of these points but there Is
no light in this report.
/ The board attacks the plumbing
fixture code because it prohibits the
! sale of culls and seconds in the United
| States. Defective material may be sold
by a maker marked defective" but
experience has shown that it almost
! invariably reaches the consumer with
out that mark. When not so marked
| only an expert can detect 1t
The sale of defective plumbing is
grave menace to health. For example.
Just this resulted in an epidemic OF
deadly amoebic dysentery in Chicago
hotel last Summer. No legitimate
little fellow needs that kind of pro-
lection or deserves that kind of privi-
/ lege. 1t is dangerous chiseling-and
! the provision attacked is based on the