Coulee City dispatch. [volume] (Coulee City, Wash.) 19??-19??, 1937-05-20
(la!ii'i9912|S5 :,
National Tonics Internrkted "a ETd06d6S
am Bruckart WTKHFHHETE
I'm Bruckart
Washington d. c.

oOAC OAAOCA OpCl COIIlpStltlOI, W Sell
at lower prices than many of their
competitors. There is another sec
ton of the mining industry where
production costs are high and in
consequence that section of the in
dustry was barely able to scrape
out a living return. Under the new
law, the high cost mines will be
assured of a reasonable return and
that means that the low cost mines
will gain exorbitant profit.
On the face Of things, it would
seem that the low cost mines would
be all for this law because of the
heavy returns they can make. Such,
however, is not the case Thus mine
owners pretty generally, would pre-
fer taking their chances in open
competition because they can make
a larger profit through a heavy vol
ume Of sales at lower prices than
under the new scheme whereby the
high cost mines are bound to get
a share of the business.
Proponents Of the law contend that
there is an obligation to the owners
OF the high cost mine or to the
workers they employ. But what, /
ask, is the user of coal going to do
about it? What has he to say and
how can he say it?
Again, sponsors of the legislation
explain that interests of the con-
Stunning public are to be protected
through the Office of a consumers
council. That is, there is a govern
ment official who is supposed to look
after. and protect your rights and
mine against excessive prices. It
may work out satisfactorily. 1 be-
lieve, however, that the odds are
heavy against any of us receiving
any benefits in this direction.
A few days after President Roose-
ve1t signed the Guffey-Vinson law,
Attorney General
otTtRe Cummings came
at Trusts forth with a letter
urging congress to
revise and tighten the antitrust law.
He said that monopoly was grow
ing in the United States and that
small businesses were being driven
to the wall by the inroads Of great
masses of capital.
There is evidence that capital is
massing. We need not look any fur
Their for proof of this than the Cuff
fey-Vinson law itself which permits
capital to work together-the only
hindrance being that which is sub
jected somewhat to the influence of
organized labor under the Guffey-
Vinson law. The result is exactly
the same whether the massing of
capital takes place under private
arrangement or under government
supervision such as is legalized in
the Guffey-Vinson law.
This situation impresses me as
being a bit incongruous. 1t seems
to be a circumstance where the
administration is trying to run in
two directions at one and the same
time. It is further exaggerated by
the fact that the President lately
has spoken with emphasis about the
rapid increase in retail prices. Yet,
besides raising wages for labor, the
only tangible result that I can see
under the Guffey-Vinson law is high
err prices for all of us to pay.
Surely, monopoly has a tendency
always to increase prices. It has
been the chief subject of harrangue
against monopoly and the Attorney
General adverted to this fact in his
recent appeal for legislation to pre-
vent monopoly. But why is it bad
for monopoly, privately arranged, to
force higher prices and good for
monopoly, legalized by congress,
to force higher prices?
President Roosevelt has sent word
around through all government de-
\, a., partments to the
NO ofocR effect that no gov
Gambling eminent worker
may engage in
stock market speculation. He has
told the civil service commission
that among the matters to be con-
sidered" when passing upon an en-
ployee's qualifications for retention
or advancement, the commission
may consider whether that en-
ployee has engaged in speculation
in securities or commodities.
At first blush, this did seem to
be a sound order. 1 have heard
much discussion of the matter, how
ever, that gives rise to other
thoughts about it. I think there can
be nothing reprehensible than
for a public official or employee to
use the confidential information
which he obtains officially as the
basis for stock speculation. On the
other hand, is it not questionable
whether a government should try
to. tell any of its employees that
they cannot invest their surplus
earnings in securities as a means
of increasing their income? The
President said that 'bona fide in
vestments" are all right but the
question for which I have not been
able to find an answer is chow can
it be determined whether the pur-
chase of a few shares of stock is
~~o1,1o&s4~ 49,