The reasons back of this move are interesting. Irn the relationship
between producer and seller, there has been a feeling that much buck
passing was taking place.

 Times being good,. profits with the producer excellent, not much
attention is paid to such matters. Retailers finding merchandise move-
ment slowing up, take advanitae of every thing possible, no matter what,
to ouicl:en sales and more particularly when it can be done at some one
elses ex-ense. Undoubtedly in good times retailers would not return mer-
chandise to a manufacturer for repair unless it were palpably faulty, but
of late years faults obviously developed as a;result of wear or careless-
ness -ere charged to manuf .cturers. The retailer however, it is claimed,
charged his customer for "repair-but on the other hand asked the original
producer to make such at no cost to the retailer. If these statements
are correct, and we are assured their are, one must admit it to be a repre-
hensible practice and anything of a legitimate nature looking toward clean-
ing the stable of bad practice is to be desired.
(Refer to pages 98 to 103 Transcript Public Hearing January 9, 1935.)

 Design Piracy is an evil we have always had with us. The brains
of the creative world as well as those of the legal (patent) fraternity,
have been turned over and over looking for a check upon the light minded
gentry, who hesitating to illegally take ones money or property, have
not thought it amiss to steal ideas from their more creative brethren.

 All governments have over the years tackled the subject, and as far
as one can quickly determine, have not'been altogether able to find a
satisfactory answer. Certainly the public hearing held January 9, 1935
developed the difficulty of obtaining a meeting of minds. (See pages
68 to 98 Transcript of Hearing) and it is well to look at Exhibit Q,
which gives an outline idea of the time and thought put into this by
the Code Authority and its officials.

 The Administration had not made their decision as to the advisa-
bility of including this as an amendment when the act was declared void
and so the matter rested.

 The minutes of Code Authority 11eetings indicate that at meeting
1o. 21 held September 27, 1934 a proposal to amend the Code by adding
a section to be known as Section 8, Article VIII coverirg Destructive
Price Cut.ting was made but Code Authority officials state this was
never pressed to a conclusion.

 The minutes of this meeting are not apparently in our own files,
but the following was taken from the Code Authority Minute 3ook.

 "Proposal to amend the Code by adding a section to Article VIII
to be known as Io. 8.

 ."Destructive Price Cutting by means -of covering any metal
 center frame, pocket and coin purse with fabric materials or


9811