OCR Text |
Show One of the major pieces of . ... ... -i : i ll-giaioiiun "- is opposed by industry on the ground that it would prevent price reductions to meet competition. compe-tition. This is regarded as unfair to the public and industry because it would encourage price regid-ity regid-ity and deprive customers of the benefits of free and open competition. com-petition. The principal threat at the present times comes from a Senate Sen-ate bill sponsored by Senator Kefauver (D Tenn.) and others. It would nullify the defense now available to price discrimination discrimi-nation charges, that price cuts were made in good faith to meet lower prices put into effect by competitors. Enactment of this measure would place in jeopardy current business practices and threaten with legal prosecution anyone who wishes to retain customers by meeting lower prices avail-ablo avail-ablo from competitors. Tills bill has been reported, without recommendations, by a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee to the full committee. The full committee started considering it May 5 and action can now be taken at any time. A similar measure, by Rep. Patman (D-Tex.), is pending in the House Judiciary Committee. If the Senate should pass its bill, House action would be promptly urged by supporters of the proposal. Not to be overlooked Is the fact that the House, in 1956, passed the Patman bill by the overwhelming vote of 393 to 3. Admittedly, many House members mem-bers were not aware of the serious ser-ious Import of the legislation and cast their votes on the basis of incomplete information. They were swayed (for the time being) by arguments from the bill's supporters that it was Intended to protect small business busi-ness and preserve "equality of opportunity." Opponents of the measure made certain that members of the Senate understood its real nature. The result was that there was no Senate action in 1956 and the bill died with the expiration of the Slth Congress. But its advocates started all over again when the 83th Congress Con-gress convened in January, 1957. They decided to try first for Senate action and then, if successful, renew the battle In the House. An increasing number of Congressmen Con-gressmen are becoming aware that the measure, if enacted, could well drive many manufacturers, manufac-turers, wholesalers, jobbers and other distributors out of business. busi-ness. Actually small businesses likely would suffer the most. The freedom to meet the price of his competitor is especially vital to the small manufacturer or distributor, who may not be able to offer all the credit or other facilities at the disposal of larger companies and must depend on the price tag as his ace-in-the-hole. The purpose of the legislation is to overturn a United States Supreme Court decision of 1951 which said that when a businessman busi-nessman is faced with loss of a customer to another firm offering offer-ing lower prices, he may reduce his own price "to meet an equally equal-ly low price of a competitor," if he does so "in good faith" that is, to retain his customer and not to squeeze out his competitor or to build up a monopoly. The decision upheld the traditional tradi-tional American freedom of competition which through our history has protected the consumer con-sumer against monopolistic practices. |