The talking machine world (Jan-Dec 1914)

THE TALKING MACHINE WORLD. 35 BANQUET OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TALKING MACHINE JOBBERS— (Continued from page 34). strengthened because it will have a guarantee of protection in so far as price and quality are concerned, and the whole system of bartering and haggling, which almost amounts to a battle of wits, will tie done away with. The Supreme Court, by a hardly understandable decision, has stated that the maker of a nationalized product has no right to say how much the retailer shall ask the public for it, and yet the Government compels the railways to maintain one price for afl, and wo.uld not this provision prevent the manufacturer of trade-marked articles from doing the same thing which the Government exacts from the railroads? With a standard trade-marked article the small dealer can meet in successful competition the large trade organization which has millions of assets, and yet cannot offer a standardized article at a less price than the small dealer who may occupy an o.bscure position in a great city. The trade-mark is the rainbow of trade — without it modern advertising could not exist, and one of the great links in the business chain would be materially weakened. There could be no standardization of values and prices — no profit assurance for the future. With a trade-marked article, a goo.d merchant is always able to cope successfully with unfair competition and he is assured of a continuity of profits to a degree not deemed possible through any other means. And so, we are all links in the great business chain, and we should remember that the chain is no stronger than its weakest link. George D. Ornstein Arouses Enthusiasm. The toastmaster next called upon Geo. D. Ornstein, manager of salesmen for the Victor Talking Machine Co., who was enthusiastically received by the assembled jobbers, who took the occasion to show their great respect both for Mr. Ornstcin's personal characteristics and his ability in his chosen field. L. S. Sherman's Address. Mr. Ornstein delivered a short talk in a happy vein and was followed by L. S. Sherman, of Sherman, Clay & Co., San Francisco, who gave some interesting reminiscences of the manner in which Mr. Geissler first became connected with the talking machine end of the business while employed by Sherman, Clay & Co. and cast his lot in a new field to meet with the success that has attended his efforts. Mr. Sherman told of the employ of Mr. Geissler to take charge of the small goods department of his house nearly a quarter of a century ago, and said regarding subsequent happenings : "In the very infancy of the talking machine industry, even before it had fairly started in this country, to use a Frenchman's expression, a wholesale liquor dealer came to me in the 'garbage of a gentleman,' stating that a sample talking machine had been sent out to him from New York with the request that his house take on the representation of it or place it with some responsible concern. "As it was claimed to be a musical instrument he came to see me. "If we were to take it on I realized that it should be handled by our small goods department, so I took the gentleman to Mr. Geissler's office. "From the result of that interview the sample was sent us to inspect. The machine told some funny stories and made an attempt at being musical. "A sample order was placed, soon followed by many others, and we became fully launched in the talking machine business. The business at the factory end was poorly handled. I believe they tried to run the factory from the lawyer's offices, where most of the stock was owned. "The principal owners wanted us to buy some of the stock. There seemed to be signs of approaching disintegration that gave no hope for future permanency with them. "Mr. Geissler was so dissatisfied with existing" conditions that he came East to thoroughly canvass the situation. "The result of that trip was that Mr. Geissler decided to cast our lot with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Douglass; the wisdom of that throw has long since been verified. "I do not have to tell you the history of the talking machine business since Mr. Johnson and his associates entered the talking machine arena, for you all know of the foes they have vanquished and of the victories they have achieved. "When .Mr. Douglass' health became impaired, necessitating his taking a complete rest, the Victor Co. needed a big man to fill a big position ; they complimented our house in placing their choice upon our most important man. "Mr. Geissler was an honored director and officer in our corporation; he resigned his position with us to assume the great responsibilities which now devolve upon him. "You can now appreciate the importance of the little ad I wrote more than twenty-five years ago and its present influence upon the talking machine industry in transferring Mr. Geissler from the Doman Music Co., of Nashville, Tenn., to the responsible position he now occupies with the Victor Co. All credit to him for the transfer." F. K. Dolbeer Well Received. Frank K. Dolbeer, who recently joined the forces of the Victor Co. as credit manager, was next introduced and was accorded a hearty reception by his many friends among the guests. Mr. Dolbeer expressed his appreciation of the honor paid him in a graceful manner. Walter I. McCoy Discusses Price Maintenance. The final speaker was Congressman Walter I. McCoy, of the Ninth New Jersey District, who delivered a lengthy address on the subject of unfair competition and who dwelt at some length on the question of price fixing. Mr. McCoy explained the Sherman law and its aim and objects in a broad way, and cited a number of decisions of the Federal courts in some of the best known cases tried under that law, including the Standard Oil and the tobacco cases. He outlined just what the law was designed to accomplish. In the matter of price fixings Mr. McCoy said in part: The court, as you know, has in several cases passed upon the question adversely to the right to control resale prices. Your contention is that under certain circumstances and surrounded by proper safeguards the fixing of resale prices, especially if it is accompanied by standardization of prices, is an economically sound proposition which, put into operation, will in the end and on the whole result to the benefit of the consumer, and so far as I am concerned I believe that your contention is sound. I do not propose to elaborate the arguments which to my mind lead to this conclusion. 1 have heard them made so ably before the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives by persons whose competency to make them is based on large experience and deep study, and whose arguments I know you have read, so that I should be simply carrying coals to Newcastle if I were to attempt to go into that partiular part of the discussion. Selfishness Behind Price Cutting. I have been satisfied by those arguments that many of those who indulge in price cutting do so solely for their own selfish purposes ; that they have not the slightest desire to serve the public by giving them good value at a low price; that in using standard and largely advertised goods as leaders at cut prices they are morally, if not legally, taking another man's property for their own benefit without any return for its use; that in the long run the net result of these unfair methods will be to deprive the community of its power to purchase some standard articles bearing a good reputation at any price at all, and in many other instances to put communities, especially small ones, to great inconvenience through their inability to have such articles at hand where they can easily be purchased, thereby forcing them to do business with non-resident dealers. I believe that many other evils result from these unfair practices, but, as I say, you know them better than I do. Is there any ground for hope that the Supreme Court, in view of these considerations, may change its view as to price fixing? Very little, I should say, notwithstanding that, as I have stated, it has apparently left to itself by its opinions on the Sherman act the power largely to guide a development of the law as though there were no statute; and, of course, courts have been known to reverse their previous decisions. It is strange that it is possible for a man to part with the good will of his business and to agree legally not to compete with the purchaser of it while, on the other hand, a man may not sell the product of his business, but may not protect the good will of it by making a reasonable contract as to that product — the man who is going out of business may protect another, but the man who stays in business may not protect himself though injuring no one. Remedy in Legislation. If I am right you are left to legislation for your remedy, and it will probably have to be legislation like the Stevens bill directly establishing your right to fix prices, for it is not likely, that any bill creating a trade commission will for the present at least give you relief, though the bill entitled "Act to Create a Federal Trade Commission" proposes to make unfair competition unlawful. The Sherman law will still be in your way. You have before you a hard task and you might better admit it, however clear to your minds is the justice of your contention. Legislative sentiment is against you to-day, I feel certain, and so perhaps is public sentiment — at any rate, the majority of members of Congress whom I have talked to have that belief. If public sentiment is against you you will have to change it. If, in addition to that fact, Congressional sentiment is hostile, you will have to demonstrate to Congress through the public as well as by hearing that none of "the evils which led to the public outcry against monopolies and the final denial of the power to make them" are likely to result from legalized price fixing. Those evils are stated by the Supreme Court as appears from one of my previous quotations, to be (1) injury to the public; (2) limitation of production; (3) deterioration in quality, demonstrate not only that none of these evils come from price fixing, but show affirmatively that the very opposite is the case and you will succeed especially if you can demonstrate further that if you are not given, the right which you seek, the practice of retail distribution as now prevailing may be seriously curtailed if not wiped out and a retail monopoly established in its stead. How the Stevens' Bill Will Help. As I read the Stevens bill, which undertakes to give you the right which you want to have, it successfully guards against the evils which were enumerated in the Standard Oil case, for it gives you nothing if you have any monopoly or control of the market for articles belonging to the same general class of merchandise as that in which you are dealing; or if you have even so much as an "understanding" with a competitor in regard to prices, and it is the possibility that such understandings can be more easily arrived at if you have the power to fix prices, which is used as one of the strongest arguments against your contentions. The provision in the bill for a standard and publicly announced price will go a long way, I believe, in bringing public sentiment to your side of the proposition. It has occurred to me to suggest that maybe you will have to accept a provision which will provide that the prices fixed for any article shall be reasonable. Of course, the objection which is immediately raised to such a proposition is that it will lead to uncertainty and litigation, but the fear of unreasonable prices is one of the things that have stood in your way so far as Congress is concerned, and, in fact, is the very fear which leads to the enactment of the Sherman law, namely, that under monopoly or partial monopoly prices are raised to an unreasonable height. The only people who can be flattered by telling them they are clever are those who aren't. PROGESSIVE JOBBERS ADVERTISE IN THE TALKING MACHINE WORLD. CONSULT THEIR ANNOUNCEMENTS.