Evening star., 1963-09-28
'Anti-MonopoH

Quality Sterilization bill,
which was the subject of an
editorial on September 20.
/. The Quality Sterilization
bill is permiSsive. It does not
require a manufacturer to
establish a price below which,
or a price range outside of
which, resellers may not sell
his brand product.
2. The retailer is not re-
quired to stock the product
of a manufacturer who avails
himself Of the provisions Of
the bill, nor is he bound by a
manufacturers price, if he
has no notice of it.
3. Above all, the consumer
is not required to buy the
pric e-stabilized article. The
market place offers an abun-
dance of alternatives. In es-
sence the Quality Stabiliza-
ton bill is an anti-monopoly
bill. 1t would promote compe-
tition by enabling small COM
petitors to compete against
bigger rivals. Today, largely
because of unfair competi-
ton, the independent retailer
Is in a life struggle. The laws
OF free enterprise were surely
not intended to drive inde-
dem t proprietors out of
their stores and to end for
them the American dream of
owning ones own business.
The Quality Sterilization
bill would strengthen an i'm
portant segment of our eco
nomy-the independent re-
taller - which accounts for
some $65 billion in annual
retail sales volume, and
makes thousands of items
available to communities
small and large-through-
out the United States.
Henry r. Peters.
May I answer your recent
editorial regarding the Quail
ty Sterilization bill in the
words of Senator Hubert
Humphrey:
while there has been a
considerable attack on the
Quality Sterilization bill, I
have not found anyone who
has proposed a better alter
native with respect to the
difficult situation confront
ing the independent retailer
merchant in America, who is
the victim today of high in
terest rates, Of monopolistic
competitions, and of dis
counters.
Until some Of the editors
Of the large newspapers and
some Governmental officials
can point out a better alter
native to the Quality Stabili-
zation bill I think they would
be well advised to be a bit
more moderate in their con-
demnation.
IN ere pleasant-sounding
WORDS about the value of an
independent free enterprise
economy are not adequate.
There must be some kind OF
legislative protection. One of
the purposes Of quality sta
bilization is tn at legislative
protection" Paul Reznek.
Your recent editorial has
left unanswered q number Of
questions which are crucial
to any realistic discussion OF
the Quality Sterilization bill.
A producer has the legal
right to create his own ex-
elusive outlets for his pro-
duct. Why. then. should the
individual manufacturer Of a
trade-marked article be pre-
vented from establishing a
arketing system under
which his several agencies
for distribution will sell at
the same price?
II a retailer is selling un-
known goods or goods under
his own name. he alone
should set the price. Should
not the retailer who has to
use someone else's name or
brand In order TO sell goods
respect the right of the ow-
ner OF the name or trade
mark TO set price or price
range under which those
goods will be sold2
Should a retailer have the
power TO depreciate In the
public mind the value OF the
makers brand and make 1t
Improbable not only for the
maker but for other retail
ers2 And should one retail
er be allowed TO indulge in
price-cutting, which tends to
drive the makers goods out
OF the market and In the end
interfere with the people s
getting the goods at alp