Evening star., 1947-08-03
The Business Mans Protector
Ex-congressnon Starts
Third FTC.Term
At Eiqhty


Made in the U. s. A." Mr.. Mason
wrote a lengthy majority opinion, in
flowing. nonleganstic style, in which
he declared it was futile to pass
laws ito police thoughts and i'm
pressions.
Says No One Deceived
Mr.. Mason wrote it was unfair to
destroy trade name (Manhattan
Canadian Ace on the basis of the
-ormer order and added: Every time
I stare at it (the lapeD I get a diff
lerent emotion, but so far I have
not had the feeling that I was being
put upon. This might be because
I have seen the word Canada ap-
piled so often to soft drinks and
bacon made in this country that I
never think of it as designating a
place of manufacture. Perhaps
most peoples reactions are the same
as mine. In all events, though mil
lions of dollars worth of this beer
have been sold under the brand
name of Canadian Ace,' there was
not single instance of purchaser
testifying at the trial that he had
seen deceived or defrauded by the
label"
The commission did retain a ban,
however, upon the company using
the word wisconsin" to describe an
ale not made there, because there
Is preference on the part of a sub
stantial portion of the purchasing
public for beer which is brewed in
Wisconsin over that, having its
origin in other States"
Mr.. Ayres led the assault upon
this viewpoint in two dissents, the
first having been written before he
had read Mr.. Mason's statement of
majority opinion. In the first dis
sent Mr.. Ayres cited bans against
the word Havana to describe
cigars and the designation English
Tub Soap" even with the words
Made in U. S. A."
Dissenting Opinion
II believe that we have" he wrote.
after much trial and error, formu-
lated a clear, concise and under
standable policy on this unfair
trade practice Contradiction of
names or terms of geographical sig
niflcance). $50 am. most reluctant
to see the force and value of that
policy impaired by the action which
the majority of the commission has
here taken. The present action re-
suits from one OF. series of pre-
viously unsuccessful formal efforts
to obtain the modification.
I'm effect. It is claimed that while
the prohibited labels were under
attack, respondent accomplished
through their use what the COM
mission found, from contempora-
neous evidence could not be accom-
plished. Such claim does not even
provide a prima facie basis for be-
lieving that It has any merit. = -
After the elaborate proceedings
which resulted in the original order,
the majority now simply accept and
mdorse without any additional evi-
dence what respondent has done
contrary to our findings and order.
There has been nothing to
show that conditions Of fact or of |
law have so changed as to warrant,
or that the public interest requires
the modification which has been or
dered." -
In the second dissent, which
seemed to be aimed specifically at
the opinion of Mr.. Mason, Mr.. Ayres%
wrote: - F."
This case is about considerably
more than beer bottle label. There
is much advertising Of the beer and
ale at point of sale, radio advertising
has been employed to limited ex-
tent and other advertising media
have been and may be employed. al
substantial quantity of the beer and
ale Is sold in restaurants and at
bars where the purchaser has no
opportunity to examine the label
and does not have the benefit of
any qualification, contradictory or
otherwise. 1t is ridiculous to sug-
gest that the qualification or con-
tradiction can accompany the
Canadian trade name whenever and
wherever it is used.
"The Federal Trade Commission
is indeed a Business Mans Court,
and it is intrusted with the obliga-
1See BUSINESS, Page C.2)