Tabor City tribune. (Tabor City, N.C.) 1946-1991, 1958-06-18
No
Comment
~ JAMES W. DOUTHAr


ny JAMES W. DoUTHAr
Asst. Vice President, Gov
eminent Relations Division ot
the National Association OF
Manufacturers.
NO COMMENT IL . repor,
Of incidents on the nationa,
scene, and does not necessarily
reflect NAM policy or position
One Of the major pieces ID
legislation pending in Congress,
is opposed by industry On thu
ground that It would proven,
price reductions to meet COM
petition.
This is regarded as unfair b
tire public and to industry be-
cause It would encourage price
rightly and deprive consum.
ers Of the benefits OF free and
open competition.
The principal threat at thu
present time comes from q Sen.
ate bill sponsored by Senatoa
Kefauver (D-Tenn.) and 9TH
ers.
It would nulify the defense
now available to price discrim-
ination charges, that price cut.
were made in good faith r.
meet lower prices put into eff
feet by competitors.
Enactment Of this measure
would place in jeopardy cur
rent business practices and
threaten with legal prosecution
anyone who wishes to retain
customers by meeting lower
prices available from competit-
ors.
This bill has seen reported
without recommendations, by q
Senate Judiciary Subcommit-
tee to the full committee. The
full committee started consid-
ering it May AID action car
now be taken at any time.
A similar measure, BY Rep
Putnam (D-Tex.) is pendins
in the House Judiciary Com
mittee. II the Senate should
pass its bill, House action
would be promptly urged by
supporters Of the proposal.
Not to be ovcricoke is the
fact that the House. in 1856,
passed the Patmaa bill by the
overwhelming vote of 1913 to 3
Admittedly. many House
members were not aware OF
the serious import of the legis-
lation and cast their votes on
the basis of incomplete infor-
nation.
They were swayed (for the
time being) by arguments from
the bills supporters that twas
intended to protec+ small bust
ness and preserve equality q
opportunity"
Opponents of The measure
made certain tina: members OF
the Senate understood its real
nature. The result was that
there was no Senate action in
1S56-and the bill died with
the expiration of The 84th Con-
gress.
But its advocates started all
over again when the 85th Con-
gresS convened IN January,
1857. They decided to try first
for Senate action and then, if
successful. renew the battle in
the House.
An increasing number OF
Congressman are becoming a
ware that the measure, II en-
acted, could well drive many
manufacturers. wholesalers, Job
bers and other distributors out
of business.
Actually, small businesses
likely would suffe-- the most.
The freedom to meet the price
Of his competitor is especially
vital to the small manufactures
or distributor, VINO may no.
be able to offer ali tho credi,
or other facilities at the dis
posal Of larger companies-and
must depend on the price tag as
his ave-in-the-hole.
The purpose o. the lesisla-
ton Is to overturn q United
States Supreme Court decision
Of 1851 which said that when
a businessman Is faced With
loss Of a customer to another
firm offering lower prices, he
may reduce his own price etc
meet an equally low price OF q
competitor" if he does so Gin
good faith"-thst is, to retair
his customer and not to squeeze
out his competitor or to build
up a monopoly.
The decision upheld the trad
itional American freedom OF
competition = which through
our history has protected the