OCR Text |
Show STAMP BILLS IE AGIJBERED Legal Phases of the Funk Measures Discussed by-Attorneys. by-Attorneys. ORATORY IS HEARD Arguments Are Made Before Be-fore Senate Committee on State Affairs. Legal phases of the Funk bills regulating reg-ulating trading stamp and coupon companies com-panies operating in Utah were discussed last nignt by attorneys on both sidos of the question before the senate committee com-mittee on state affairs. The hearing was held at the Hotel Utah and all of the time, except for a brief rebuttal by the affirmative, was given oyer to those who arc opposed to the regulations proposed pro-posed in the Funk bills. Frank K. Nebtkcr, attorney for the : United Cigar Stores company and other big users of coupons and trading stamps, made the principal argument against the Rink billp. Others who spoke against ; the bills included local agents of the trading stamp companies and some of ! the large merchants who use these stamps. 1 Mr. Nebcker contended that the Rink , bills are in contravention to the fourteenth four-teenth amendment to the constitution of the United States, providing that property may not bo taKcu except by due process "of law. He quoted from decisions of the, supreme courts of a great many states which had held unconstitutional un-constitutional legislation against the trading stamps. J. T. Hammond Heard. J. T. Hammond, attorney for the Retail Re-tail Merchants' association and chief spokesman for the affirmative, admitted that in states where laws had been enacted en-acted prohibiting trading stamps and imposing on the business taxes and licenses li-censes which were in effect prohibitive had been declared unconstitutional, but maintained that the Punk bills were cleariv constitutional. 'The Funk bills do not provide for a licensing of trading stamp companies and they do not provide for a tax on the business,' said Mr. Hammond. "Instead, "In-stead, they put a tax upon a transfer of property. ' Mr. Ilammond declared that the supreme su-preme court of the United States had upheld a New York law providing for a stamp revenue tax on transfer of corporate stock and held that the rev-1 enue tax on the transfer of trading stamps from the company to,the dealer, as proposed bv senate bill No. 14, would be similarly upheld and will bo similarly constitutional. The opening argument was made by Mr. Xebeker, for the negative. ' These bills are prohibitive and are intended to be prohibitive," he asserted. "It has been suggested that the bills are for revenue, but if you consider the interests in-terests urging tiiem. "you'll realize that they are intended to wipe out trading stamps. ' ' Mr. Nebeker referred to arguments argu-ments in favor of the bills made the previous evening by representative of the lictail Merchants' association, other stores opposed to stamps and the Federation Fed-eration of Labor. Says Trade Is Disturbed. Commenting further on the opposi- , tion to trading stamps. Mr, Nebeker saiil that the stamps had disturbed channels of trade by diverting patronage patron-age from other stores to certain stores which give the stamps, tie then cited 1 to the committee decisions by high tribunals tri-bunals of other states against trading stamp legislation, and read many of the opinions. G. A. Fande, local agent for the Sperry & Hutchinson company, declared de-clared that tho principal virtue of trading trad-ing stamps was that they encouraged buying for cash, which was a good thine for the merchant and consumer, and that tho premiums offered by the , i stamps constituted a discount to the purchaser for cash buying. Similar j statements were made by Mr. Nebeker; and others. 1 Mr. Pandc took exception to a state-' ment made tho night previous by T. L. Irvine, citv sealer of weights and mensnres, that only 60 per cent of the trading stamps were redeemed. Mr. Pandc said, and another speaker said, that fully 03 per cent of the trading stamps were redeemed. Replying. Mr. Trvine Haid that one of Mr. Fande s assistants, as-sistants, soliciting n merchant to adopt the Hlarnps, had stated that only about DO per cent of tho stamps were redeemed. re-deemed. Mr. Pando contended that the statement was incorrect, anvway. Ue also said that the amount paid annually annual-ly to trading stamp companies by Salt fakc merchants was awnv under $300,-OfiO. $300,-OfiO. the sum rriven bv Mr. Trvino the nitrht before, but ho did not say whnt the payments did amount to. In Favor of Stamps. Representatives of the Auerbach Tim puny, Schramm -Johnson, Drugs, Walker Brothers- Pry Goods- company and tho Fischer-Kittle Coal company, si, 1 1 users of trading stumps or vouchers, argued in favor of these devices and against the Funk bills. W. It. Hammond Ham-mond of the Inlermoimtain trading starun concern and L. Goldman of tho Security Voucher comoiinv spoke ;iL':iinst the' bill. U. .7. WilliamH suggested sug-gested (but histoid of seeking passage of the Funk bills citizens opposed to trading stamps oreani.n against them. CoiKtludi ng, in rebuttal for the affirmative affirm-ative 011 tho bills, J. T. Hammond declared de-clared the state had n perfect right to place a lax on the i ransfor of trading trad-ing si a nips in lnrorn lot s, rcsrut in u stalenif'til by Mr. Pando that thn stato lia'l not that right. The commit tee will take the Funk bills under adviserm-ut next. week. |