NRA Hears Both Sides of Lumber Minimum Price Controyersy

Washington, D. C., Dec. l8.-Follorving the three_day NRA public hearing, ended here December 13, on the ,r"*"d question of minimum cost protection prices in the lumber industry, the Lumber Code Authority, in special session here, was assured by NRA that a decision would be forthcoming at the earliest possible date, probably not later than December 20. The Authority refrained fiom taking any position in the matter and adjourned on December 15.

While, strictly speaking, the hearing was predi,cated on the petition by the West Coast Lumbermen's Association for elimination of price provisions in the West Coast Division, NRA threw the meeting open to a full discussion of the issue in all its aspects throughout the indlstry, with NRA Division Administrator W. P. Ellis, Deputy Administrator A. C. Dixon, and representatives of the various NRA divisions taking testimony from approximately 100 spokesmen of lumber groups, individual concerns and other industries.

The hearing was the most heavily attended of any held lry NRA for the lumber industry since the Code's inception, the audience numbering into the hundreds. In view of tn" large number of witnesses, NRA adopted the procedure of hearing all testimony on one side of the question before witnesses on the other side were called. Testimony from advocates of price repeal occupied the first day and a half.

A surprise element was thrown into the proceedings just prior to starting the testimony of price proponents, when Dr. Constance Southworth, of the NRA Consumers Advisory Board, read recommendations of the Board with respect to the lumber industry, which he summarized as fol_ Iows.

"Discontinuance of fixed minimum prices; gradual adjust_ nlent of production capacity to a basis of sustained lumber yield and operating effi,ciency; public acquisition of the forests as rapidly as may be feasible, and strict government control over cutting."

His further remark that the Advisory Board recognized that carrying out those recommendations would prove a "painful process", evoked chu,ckles from the several hun_ dred lumbermen present, followed by applause when Divi_ sion Administrator Ellis, ,condu,cting the hearing, explained that Dr. Southworth was presenting the opinion of an NRA advisory board and that he did not speak for the National Recovery Administration itself.

Representatives of the following gioups testified for re_ peal of price provisions: West Coast Lumbermen,s Asso_ ciation ; Hardwood Manufacturers' Institute; Lumbermen,s Fixed Price Repeal Association of Seattle; Intercoastal Lumber Distributors Association; Southwestern Fixed Price Repeal Association; Roofer Manufacturing Association; Small Mill Pine Association; Furniture Code Author_ ity; Central Warehouse Lumber Company, and other wholesalers; National-American Wholesale Lumber Association.

Those groups testifying for retention of price provisions were:

Red Cedar Lumber Group of the West Coast Lumber Di_ vision; Red Cedar Shingle Division; Western pine Divi_ sion; California Redwood Division and California Redwood Association; Southern pine Division; Cypress Division; Northeastern Softwood Division; Appalachian Group oi the Southern and Appalachian Haidwoocl Subdivision; North Central Hardwood Subdivision; Northern Hemlock Division and Northern Hardwood Subdivision; Delta group of mill members of Hardwood Manufacturers Institute; Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Co.; National Stained Shin. gle subdivision and National Stained Shingle Association; Mahogany Subdivision; Walnut Subdivision; Veneer arrj Plywood Subdivision; Woodwork Division; Wooden pack_ age Division and Subdivisions; National Retail Lumber and Building Material Code Authority; National Retail Lumber Dealers Association; Mountain States Lumber Dealers As. sociation; Middle Atlantic Lumbermen,s Association.

The Hardwood Manufacturers Institute was added to the list of price provision opponents when, on the second dav of the hearing C. Arthur Bruce, of the E. L. Bruc. Co. Memphis, former executive offi,cer of the Lumber Code Authority, and J. H. Townshend, secretary_manager of the Institute, reported that a vote of the southern directors on December 4 stood 18 to 2 against retention of price provi_ sions applying to Southern hardwood mills. lt *r" "*- plained that this vote did not include a poll of the Appala_ chian members of the Institute,s board.

In announcing the Institute's decision, Mr. Bruce and Mr. Townshend reviewed the successive developments in the Southern Hardwood territory since last July which had led the Institute to take its action of December 4. Thev said the final breakdown of price administration among the Southern hardwood mills followed the now widely_known order by the Fisher Body Corporation for approximately 50,000,000 feet of lumber at below minimum pri"", authoi_ ized by the ,code, divided among several scores of hardwood producers, resulting in court action cases in a number of Southern states in which decisions had been at wide variance. The result, they said, has been that in some states price regulations are held unconstitutional, in others con_ stitutional, and in still others no determination at all has been made. fn ,consequence those mills which have con_ tinued to abide by authorized minimum prices have sufiered a heavy loss of business to those disregarding the code, and conditions now prevailing in the industry harre become, ac_ cording to Mr. Bruce, ,'intolerable,,. ,,Minimum prices have been shown absolutely impracticable and t'rrr*oik"bl",', h" said.

Mr. Townshend, at the close of his testimony, was asked by Division Administrator Ellis whether he ihought discontinuance of price control in the southern hardwJod industry would afiect compliance with other provisions of the code. He replied that in his opinion, and in the opinion bf the majority of the Institute directors other provisions would be afiected, that mill operators would probably be asking soon for an adjustment in wages to bring down costs, and probably also would be found protesting against production control. lle said he anticipated sawmill operaiors will ask to have sawmill wages for common labor placed on a level with those now paid by the Federal b,-"tg.tt.y Relief Administration to that class of workers'

H. W. Bunker, Coos Bay Lumber Co., San Francis'co, Calif., and A. E. Mclntosh, Seaboard Lumber Co', Seattle, Wash., spoke for the Lumbermen's Fixed Price Repeal Association of Seattle, testifying that the code pri'ce structure, for all practical purposes is a fead letter on the West Coast'

"We are here to preserve the worthwhile features of the code, and to make changes that will make the preservation possible", Mr. Mclntosh said.

Mr. Bunker reviewed the part the West Coast Lumbermen's Association has taken in the administration of price regulations until its 'recent vote for their abandonment, and stated that protests began to'come in within a m'onth after code price provisions went into efiect in November, 1933' The protests, he said, mounted steadily until the recent longshoremen's strike tied up shipping facilities and caused tremendous stocks of lumber to accumulate on wharves and in mill yards.

"By the end of the strike", he said, "sentiment against price fixing had piled up so heavily that at summer's close price control had largely melted away. The majority of the cargo mills are disregarding code prices."

Mr. Stone declared that the West Coast lumber industry wants to preserve other provisions of the code, with which he said the industry is'complying, and held that the preservation of the wage structure is in no way dependent upon price control. He gave figures to show that weekly earnings of sawmill workers on the West Coast have declined under the code, but upon being questioned agreed that the number of workers employed has in'creased.

R. T. Titus, speaking for the Intercoastal Lumber Distributors Association, Seattle, said that all efforts to obtain either voluntary or forced ,compliance with the price provisibns have fiilea, thdrt purchasers of lumber will not assist in the work of obtaining evidence against price violators, and that "the Government itself either cannot or will not enforce price regulatiotts." Invoices show sales at'code prices, he said, but there are so many now commonly used devices for making the sales at below prices shown on the invoices that the latter have become meaningless.

A. W. Clapp, representing the Weyerhaeuser and Shevlin interests, St. Paul, Minn., termed price 'control of any kind an experiment that has proved "an economic mistake, a subversion of justice, tending only to weaken the justifiable provisions of the code.

Others who took the floor in opposition to price provisions were:

T. B. Larsen, Willamette Valley Lumber Association; F. H. Ransom, Western and Eastern T.umber Co., Portland, Ore., chairman of the first industry group appointed by the West Coast administrative agen'cy to Pass upon complaints of price violations; W. B. Nettleton, Nettleton Lumber Co., Seattle; M. B. Mcl-eod, Southwestern Fixed Price Repeal Association, made up of yellow pine mills in Arkansas, Texas and Louisiana; F. T. Turner, Sanitee, S. C., a director of the Hardwood Manufacturers Institute; Middleton L. 'Wootten, Columbus, Miss., representing the Small Mill Pine Association; J. H. Bell, Richmond, Va', president of the Roofer Manufacturing Association; F. C. Mills, Acworth, Ga., a member of the Roofer association; M' G' Truman, March &. Truman I umber Co., wholesale, Chicago; W. W. Schupner, secretary-manag'er' NationalAmerican Wholesale Lumber Association, and representatives of the Furniture Code Authority:

Defenders of cost protection pri'ces stood their ground tenaciously in behalf of what they declared is an essential to maintenance of order in the lumber industry. They contended that it is impossible to remove price control from any one or group of the industry's divisions without an early resultant breakdown of ,cost protection in all other divisions, and a return to suicidil lumber prices so destructive in 1932 and early 1933.

One of the most vigorous defenders of price provisions was Lee Robinson, who resigned a week ago from the presidency of the Hardwood Manufa'cturers Institute when

(Continued on Page 25)