Evening star., 1936-07-26

suit was to incorporate In the same
act two different kinds Of legislation
under one cover. But there Is no m
congruity or precedent in the TACT
that this act Is really two distinct
laws to be administered by two dif-
ferent Government agencies.
The new section Of the Robinson
Patman act covers all that the old
section 2 of the Clayton act covered
and a good deal more-for example.
both concern relations between q
selling agency and its customers; the
old section 2 provided in effect that
any discrimination in prices as be-
tween different purchasers were un-
lawful II they had the effect Of sub
stantially lessening competition or
tending to create a monopoly; the
new section 2 contains all that and
in addition prohibits determinations
which injure. destroy or prevent
competition with any person who
either grants or knowingly receives
the benefit of such determinations
or with customers Of either Of them" !"
The Federal Trade Commission,
which is supposed to administer this
new act, has issued an analysis, en-
phasizing that 1t is based on data
compiled from public sources Of in
formation and reproduced by the
commission in connection with its
administration" of the act. This
is not in any sense an expression Of
the commissions views and interpre-
tations of the act"
The commission explains: Since
the passage of the act the commission
has had a number Of inquiries as
to the method to be followed in call
ing the commissions attention to ap-
parent violations and the procedure
to be followed by the commission in
the enforcement Of the act. Any one
may call to its attention the violation
of any law over which the commission
has jurisdiction. Such application
should be in writing, signed by or
on behalf Of the applicant, and should
contain q definite statement of the
facts.
Informal Opinions Impracticable.
The fact that the commission Is
required to follow certain formal pro-
cedure prescribed in the act before
it can say whether the act has been
violated makes it impractioable for
the commission to express informal
opinions upon the legal status Of
matters presented on the basis OF
hypothetical or ex parte statements
of fact"
The extent to which business Is
perplexed was shown at a meeting
of 1,1O0 prominent business leaders
under the auspices Of the New York
Trade Association Executives on July
8. The speakers were Newell w. e.
lison. Washington attorney: Thurlow
M. Gordon and Francis Z. Neagle
New York attorneys; Col. William
Donovan. former head Of the Anti
trust Division Of the Department oi
Justice, and Willard L. Throp. di-
rector of economic research for Dunn
g. Bradstreets, Inc. The meeting
broke up with a general admission
! that they know almost as little about
what the act meant as when they
| started.
All the large trade associations and
business and industrial groups are
getting out pamphlets carrying widely
varying "interpretations"-for exam
pie, the Institute of Distribution, New
York. has three pamphlets on various
phases of the Robinson -Patman act
Any number of commercial interests
are issuing statements to their af-
! hliated trade groups. such as the
National Fertilizer Association, the
National Food Brokers Association
and the National Gamers Associa-
tion-all their own Interpretation, ano
no two of them alike
One of the big interests in the act
about which there is intense uncer-
tainty, because all campaign programs
are more or less held In allegiance
is how it affects advertising. Printers
Ink, "a journal for advertisers" h