Evening star., 1943-07-09
OPA ORcial Dissents
From Star Editorial.
IT, 4ka KA.tnr - ~Sh a n 49,

10 eiie Eoitoi Va iue ctSf.
Your editorial on July takes the posi-
ton that Congress is justified in refusing
OPA additional funds to supplement an
enforcement staff that is now ridicu-
lousy small for the stupendous task
assigned to it. The burden of your edi-
torial is that OPA enforcement attorneys
have gone throughout the country
preaching the strange doctrine that good
faith is immaterial'-thati If business
man violates any OPA regulation ''he
should be hailed into court and punished,
no matter how hard he may have tried
to comply with the orders"
This statement is simply not correct.
1t has always been the OPA enforcement
policy to recognize a vast difference be-
tween situations in which violator mas
acted in good faith and one in which he
has acted willfully or with gross negli
gence There are literally thousands OF
instances where OPA enforcement attor-
neys have dismissed cases with simple
warning when it was shown that the
violation was inadvertent. Our entire
plan tor enforcement of the food reguia-
tions at retail through the aid of price
panels is based upon the principle that
most violations will be sifted out by the
price panel through process of friendly
adjustment and that only repeated or
fragrant violations will be referred to
the enforcement attorneys for formal
action.
On the other hand, I think you must
agree that the mere fact that a violaIor
has acted in good faith should not give
him an unfair advantage over a COM
petitor who has informed himself of the
regulation and adhered to its terms A
price increase is infiationary regaroIess
of motive. Consequently it has been our
policy. in many cases, even though the
violation is inadvertent to require the
return of the amount of the overcharge
either to the Treasury or, under certain
circumstances, to the buyer or tenant.
This is simply to assure that the violator
gains no advantage by reason OF his vlo-
lation. Thousands of cases have been
adjusted on this basis.
Furthermore, the mere fact that the
violator claims he has been acting IN
good faith should certainly not preclude
enforcement action if OPA has good
reason to believe otherwise. In the Hecnr
case, about which you commented pre-
viously, and in the restaurant case which
you mentioned in Mondays editorial,
our attorneys were convinced that the
violations were OF such scope and char
acter that they could not have peen
carried on in good faith or through
mere inadvertence. AS sometimes hap
pens, the judge ruled that OPA had not
proved this, somewhat difficult, issue of
fact. 1t Is certainly not fair to take these
decisions, or the action Of OPA attorneys
in appealing them, as proof that OrA
recognizes no distinction between an
honest mistake and deliberate violation
OF law"
There is one further consideration OF
great Importance involved in this matter
OF good faith. Under the law enacted py
Congress, rs we read 1t, the Government
has right to an Injunction against vlo-
lations whether or not the violator has
acted in good faith. We ut times rely
upon this provision Of the law. not in
order to punish innocent buEinesmen or