United States Court Reverses Federal Trade Commission in Veneered Furniture Case

; Of great interest to those portions of the lumber industry affected by any of the several lumber trade name cases now before the Federal Trade Commission, is the decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals recently rendered in the case of The Federal Trade Commission against the Berkey & Gay Furniture Company, of Grand Rapids, Michigan. Various phases of the decision, reversing the cease and desist order of the Comnrission seem to be of more or less direct bearing on some of the other cases, principally the Philippine Mahogany case.

It seems that this case has many of the important phases of the Philippine Mahogany case, which American importers and distributors have always claimed to be strictly a competitive trade matter in which the Federal Trade Commission has unwisely and unjustly taken a hand.

The Federal Trade Commission ordered the Berkey & Gay Furniture Company to cease and desist from labeling and selling their laminated and veneered furniture as "Mahogany," "Walnut," etc., without specifying in their labels and advertisements that such furniture was veneered. declaring such acts to be deception and unfair practice.

In this case the United States Court did the exact thing that The Federal Trade Commission should have done but did not do-being, or alleged to be a court of business investigation-and examined into the real facts of the case. The Federal Trade Commission said. in effect: "This furniture is marked 'Mahogany' butis not solid Mahogany, and people might suppose they were buying solid Mahogany and were thus deceived, therefore you can't do that any longer."

It was like the superficial judgment of a little child in the matter. What did the United States Circuit Court of Appeals do? They went to the solid facts. They say in their reversal decision:

"The record discloses that the finest of all modern furniture, having exposed flat surfaces, such as tables, desks, and the like, are constructed from laminated wood, with the grains of the various layers running in different directions so as to prevent cracking and warping, and with a layer of Mahogany or Walnut secured to the exposed surfAce. INDEED SUCH ISTHE ONLY PRACTICAL WAY OF CONSTRUCTING FLAT SURFACES OF I.ARGE AREA AND ALL OF THE EFFECTS OF MATCHED GRAINING MAY BEOBTAINED ONLY

IN THIS MANNER. THE PRACTICE IS SUBSTANTIALLY UNIVERSAL.''

Three loud and rousing cheers for the court. This business body that rvas created to see things and judge them in a business way never listened to this, the only important phase of the entire matter. Sure the practice is universal. It's the only way it can be done. In ancient Egypt they built the wonderful pieces of furniture that we dig up anil look on with wonder, in that way. Wellbuilt liminated wood is stronger, better, more practical, and far more beautiful than the solid wood of the same character. The grain effects can be obtained only in that,way.

The Court sees another fundamental here that the Commission could not see. ft says:

"The record affirmatively diiclosei, without dispute, that all furniture of the better quality has its flat surfaces constructed of plywood, and THAT ONLY THE CHEAPER AND INFERIOR GRADES OF LESS VALUABLE MATERIAL ARE CONSTRUCTED OF SOLID wooDS."

And so the Court holds that there is no false labeling, no deception, no unfair practice.

4g"in, the furniture company had been charged likewise with refusing to comply with the cease and desist order of the Federal Trade Commission, just as the defendants have done in other wood cases. With regard to this, read the u'ords of the Court:

"We do not consider that it is a confession of misbranding or false labeling to urge the invalidity of the Commission's order, or to assert an unwillingness to comply there- with. If that order be invalid, the petitioner should not be burdened with its issuance."

And it concludes : "Not only is the order of the Commission wholly unsuppo_rted !y tltf evidence, but it is inappropriate to remedy the alleged evil. It is an interference with freedom and actiotr on the part of the petitioners of rvhich they may justly complain."

_ S_ounds as though the Court were soundly spanking the Federal Trade Commission, doesn't it ? The decisiott oJ the Court seems to say: "IJnwarranted interference" to the Commission.

It declares that the manufacturers of furniture have by their laminated artistry given the public "a better article, a more beautiful, more durable, and more serviceable piece of furniture."