Evening star., 1943-07-09
OPA Policy Statement

| OF the Enforcement Division of the
Office of Price Administration, takes
exception to criticism of some as
poets of the OPA enforcement policy
which was contained in an editorial
published in The Star of July S.
Mr.. Emerson is mistaken in his
assertion that the editorial of July
S took the position that Congress
was justified in refusing OPA addi-
tional funds to supplement its en-
forcement staff. The editorial took
no such position, but merely ad-
vanced the suggestion that If the
agency's funds should be cut its own
enforcement policy would be largely
to blame. The burden of Mr. Emer-
sons complaint, however, is directed
to the contention in the editorial
that OPA attorneys have gone
throughout the country preaching
the strange doctrine that good faith
is immaterial-that offending busi-
nessmen should be punished no mat
ter how hard they may have tried
to comply with OPA regulations.
This, Mr.. Emerson says, is not a
fact. On the contrary, according to
his letter, there have been thousands
of instances in which cases of price
violation have been dismissed with
simple warnings when it was shown
that the violations were inadvertent.
However he adds, since a price in
crease is inf1ationary regardless Of
motive, 1t has been the OPA policy
in many cases to require the return
Of the amount of the overcharge, the
purpose being to prevent the violator
from gaining competitive advan-
tage. Mr.. Emerson also defends the
use by OPA Of the injunctive process
in certain types of cases, but denies
that this reflects any refusal to dis
criminate between willful and mad
vertent violations.
AS against these claims, this is
what the record. in part, shows:
In the Hecht Company case, tried
here before Justice Let's, OPA con-
tended that upon showing of viola
tions, inadvertent or otherwise, the
court was bound by law to issue an
injunction against the company. But
Justice Let's thought otherwise.
Pointing out that the element of
willfulness was entirely lacking in
the violations, and that the compan-
had gone to great lengths in its eff
forts to comply with the regulations,
he said: Courts of equity are not
inquisitorial, but remedial In the
legislation here involved 1t was not
the purpose Of Congress to police
industry, but to seek compliance for
the public good and to recognize
honest and true efforts to meet the
requirements of the law" The OPA
refuses to accept this view.
In March another local merchant
sold a pair of stockings for eighty
five cents above the ceiling price.
The evidence showed, however, that
the ceiling had been reduced by
eighty-five cents just a few hours
prior to the sale, and that the seller
did not know of the reduction and
had no reasonable opportunity to
learn of it. Counsel for OPA con-
tended that the seller, nevertheless,
was liable for the full fifty dollar
penalty for the overcharge, and that
it made no difference whether he
knew Of the change in ceiling price
or not. Rejecting this contention,
the Municipal Court of Appeals said:
BLACK markets should be suppressed
and proflteers punished by every
lawful means. On the other hand.
the innocent should not be swept into
court with the guilty and denied an
opportunity to present a reasonable
defense" Since OPA took different
view, it must be assumed that this
was an exception to the thousands
of instances" in which OPA dismissed
simple violations with a warning.
Nor does it fall into that second
category Of unintentionaI violations
in which the seller was merely re-
quired to refund the amount of the
overcharge so that he would not gain
competitive advantage.
In recent case in Chicago OPA
asked Federal Court for an injunc-
ton against a meat dealer on the
basis of some overcharges that were
trivial in relation to the firms total
volume of business. Refusing to
grant the injunction, the judge said
OPA must realize that they haven't
exclusive rights on all the patriotism
in America. They should not use the
injunction process in cases of con-
fusion and innocent error" When
OPA counsel protested that the good
faith of the offender was not entitled
to consideration, the judge replied:
ANY man has a right to come into
my court and show that he is operat-
ing in good faith"
These are only some of the cases
in which OPA has practiced philos-
ophy that does not harmonic with
Mr.. Emerson's statement. 1t may be
that as a strict matter of law there
is support for the enforcement policy
reflected in these instances. But the
editorial complained of did not con-