The Philippine Mahogany Question Again

The following dditorial is by Mr. Walter Scrim, Los Angeles, United States representative for the Kolambugan Timber and, Dwelopment Company, Manila, and, was spech,Ily prepared for "The California L;smber Merchant". Mr. Sufun is an authority on Philipline woods, the information contained in the article con be taken as authoritative and the opinions erpressed as coming from one who.se ideas on the subject may be highly respected.

As stated in "The California Lumber Merchant", August 15th issue, the Federal Trade Commission decided on JulY 21st by a vote of four to one that the term 'lPhilippinc Mahogany" is unfair tradc practice and constitutes a deception of the public. A cease and desist order was rendered against the three defendants in the' case. This does not mean that . the term "Philippine Mahogany" is a thing of the past, for regardless. of the findings of the Federal Trade Commission this vduable wood is still called "Philippine Mahogany".

In the first place the cease and desist order only applies to the defendants who were made the "goats" in this cas€ and in the second place the F. T. C. cannot enforce their ruling ercept by order of the Fedcral Court of Appcals. In the meantime, an apped is being propared in thc case of the thrce respondents by the Phitppine Mahogany Association and it is the business of all dealers in "Philippine Mahogany" to carry on until such time as judgment is handed down by the courts.

The Federal Courts have reversed the decisions of the F. T. C. so often and our case being such a strong one, it is very likely that the court will fudin favor of the dealers in "Plilippiire Mahogany". In reviewing the findings 9f -thJ F. T. C. it is apparenl t[at dccision wal made on the briefs of the F. T. C. and the Mahogany Association attorneys without a proper review of the evideqce as fotmd in the record.

As stated in a previous article on this subject, ttis is not a case where the i'public" is concerned but a case where the Mahogany Association dealers in Mexico, Honduras and African Mahogany, jealous of the headway made in "Philippine Mahogany", have used a Federal organizatioq for their own beneft. Commissioner'W. E. Humphrey in his dissenting opinion puts this very plainly when he says:

"No public interest appears in this case. The reason for complainj herein isnot because the user does not lmow what he is buying, but because he does know. It is a controversy entirely between the Mahogany Association and the users of Philippine Mahogany. There is no substantial ev.idence in the record that any ultimate consumer of Phil-

(Continued on Page 16)