Evening star., 1936-08-23
ROB|NSON-PATMAN.
LAW IS DEFENDED
Act Is Upheld by Official OF
US. Wholesale Grocers'
Group.
IN m. Editor of The Evening Star:

an article by Mr.. David Lawrence ap-
Aaring in your issue OF Friday Au-
K,st T. in which Mr.. Lawrence con-
.mns the Robinson -Patman act as
aasound legislation. -~.- .--e.
Since the enactment Of the Robin
son-Patman act many OF the large
food and grocery manufacturers has
discontinued all advertising allow
ances, although such allowances are
permitted to competitors on propor-
tionally equal terms, have dlscon-
tinued brokerage paid to the buyer or
to afiliated buying organizations, are
rechecking their quantity discounts 10
see that they do not exceed the saving
to the seller Of the cost involved,
and the Goodyear Tire g. Rubber Co.
has Cancelled its contract with sears,
Roebuck g. Co.. whereby the Goodyear
Co. sold products to the Sears Co. at
vastly lower prices than to others.
All of this, it may be stated, is IN
conformity with the purposes OF the
Robinson-Patman act.
In his article Mr.. Lawrence says
that the Robinson-Patman act Is
"neither wholly bad. however nor
wholly good. It's objective is worthy"
1t would seem that the Robinson-Pat-
man act is all right as long as 1t re-
mains in the objective stage, as was
SO largely the case with the old Clay
ton act, but when it gets down TO
specific provisions which actually pre-
vent discrimination in price either dl-
rectly or indirectly. then that Is bad.
So long as the Robinson-Patman act
merely says something about dis
examinations, that is good, but when
It cancels an unscionably discrimina-
tory contract such as that existing be-
tween the Goodyear Tire IL Rubber
Co. and Sears. Roebuck & Co.. that Is
bad When the Robinson-Patman act
merely frowns upon practices that
are promotive of monopoly. that Is
good, but when it actually bites
through and stops brokerage paid to
the buyer or buyer affiliates' and
quantity discounts that exceed the
saving in cost to the seller, then that
Is bad, very bad-diSruptive Of busi-
ness and confusing to business men.
When the Robinson act
merely shakes its head at the destruc-
ton of competition, that is good. but
when 1t stops advertising allowances
outright, or permits them. to COM
petitors only on proportionally equal
terms that is utterly horrible. The
Robinson-P -Patman act has caused the
Atlantic g. Pacific Tea Co. to discon-
tinue altogether or greatly minimize
or r
since manufacturers have ceased to
pay for such advertising.
Independent Was Not Surviving.
Prior to the Robinson -Patman act
mass buying organizations escaped a
Just share of the overhead of the
manufacturer, were given off-the-in-
voice quantity discounts, brokerages
and advertising allowances. These
advantages were rarely granted to the
independent and if so. in a very minor
degree. How could the independent
survive under what was virtually a
subsidy of mass buying power? He
was not surviving The volume of
business done by him was consta ntly
decreasing. The volume of the food
and grocery business done by corpor-
ate chains is A per cent Of the entire
Nation and in certain urban centers
it approaches, If it does not exceed 80
per cent.
Mr.. Lawrence in his daily column
pursues course of seemingly delight
Ing in some such exercise as discover
ing stale pie in the commissary of
some alphabetical organization and
hurling it at the New Deal or of eyeing
some blister on the heel Of a P. w. A.
worker or some heel among the re-
lief seekers who has chiSeled a blister
on some relief administrator, and then
using such minutiae to point moral
of another New Deal folly or adorn
tale of another New Deal atrocity.
Following this course in his article.
Mr.. Lawrence attempts to make New
Deal sore thumb out of the Robinson
Patman act. Sorry. Mr.. Lawrence,
your error. The fact is that the Rob-
inson-Patman act is not Of New Deal
origin or insiStence. 1t originated
with our association, prior to the de-
cision Of the Supreme Court voiding
the national recovery act and the
codes. It is true that the administla-
tion leaders in both Houses of Con-
gress backed this bill. but If there ever
was measure that received thorough
non-partisan support in Congress, 1t
was the Robinson -Patman bill It
passed the House by vote of 290 for
and only 16 against, and in the Senate
1t passed with only few dissenting
votes. 1t was as nearly unanimously
enacted as any measure ever before
Congress. The Republicans in the
House and Senate with a few excep-
tions were as ardent supporters of the
Robinson-Patma bill as any New
Dealer whosoever. In the House what
little opposition there was, came from
three or four New York City New Deal
Representatives. Mr.. Lawrence is mis-
taken if he thinks that a change of
administration will repeal or weaken
the Robinson-Patman act. No politi-
cal party will ever permit the business
Of the yeomanry of trade and industry
In this country to be made another
dust bowl by unjust concessions ex-
acted by mass buying power.
Subsidy Prevented by Act.
The original Robinson-Patman bill
was drafted by H. 3. Teegarden,
attorney for our association, wfto was
formerly Assistant Attorney General
Of the United States. 1t was support
ed In Congress by other national
organizations of independent mer-
chants. We sought no advantages for
ourselves, we merely wished to take
away the unfair advantages that 9TH
ers were enjoying to the detriment OF
Independent business. The purpose
and provisions of the Robinson Pat
man act put all forms of distribution
on a comparable parity of buying
prices. 1t gives no one an advantage,
but it does prevent the subsidy of any
channel of distribution. If this is class