Newspaper Page Text
A
J
V
I
IT
be Mi
)dern Curse of Quantity Rati
ler Th
lan Quai
ity By Prof. Ferrero
By Prof. Guglielmo Ferrero,
The Greatness and Decline of Rome," Etc.
The Distinguished Historian, Author of
T HE enormous wealth of America Is one
o! the most remarkable phenomena of
our epoch. It has done much more than
furnish to mankind means of action and enjoy
ment such as we never possessed before. This
wealth, in fact, is pushing to its last phase the
movement which began more than a century
ago and which threatens to overturn the foun
dations of our civilization. It presents to us, In
fact, the gravest problem of our time. We find
this problem, at the same time as the influence,
tiie hatred and the admiration of wealth in
America, at the bottom of nearly all the moral
and social difficulties with which we are strug
gling. it is the problem of progress.
is this American wealth that of a barbarous
nation? Not at all. Magnificent universities,
museums and libraries are the signs of a cul
ture born of a great enthusiasm. A writer
who loves paradox might, if he wished, amuse
himself by proving that Americans are more
idealistic than Europeans, at least if we can
regard the desire to understand, to assimilate
a:,d to marvel at everything as a proof of
idealism 1 do not accept this paradox, but
1 must say that the governpeuts and govern
ing classes of old Europe give less encourage
ment to art. letters and science tnan those of
America.
The fact is that a revolution is taking place
in the minds of humanity even In old Europe.
I'iie idea of progress came into existence be
tween the end of the seventeenth century and
:he beginning of the eighteenth at the moment
wh- j man began to perceive that he could con-
qu- r the whole earth and Its treasures. It was
u in- ccuceited tiie idea of progress. This
. a to-day dominates all our civilization and
rannizes over us. We have abandoned the
id scruple* of tradition and authority for the
■a i’U. o’ liberty and wealth.
What is this progress, the mystic word that
lies us? Everybody speaks of it and nobody
nows with precision what it is. It is a most
I'orre thing that in this cenlur; of progress
• 11 im'- cm; iplains of liie decadence of every
thing. Workmen, employes, soldiers, students,
. iiiotners, servants---especially
:wants are not as good, we are told, as those
: other days. Good cooking is disappearing at
■ same time as good literature, good furni-
!i ‘ids nd good manners, and so on.
How Is it then that so many things are de-
t-riorating in (he century of progress? Are
we reall.v progressing or are we not? Is the
!"' -!•’■ of which we are so proud, to which
we sacrifice every day our rest, our Iran-
ometimes even our lives, only an il
lusion ?
This, is the supreme problem which has pro
ved Itself to me as the result of my A mer
it experiences The civilizations of which
ours was tiie outcome were poor In resources
They limited their desires, their ambitions,
their spirit of Initiative, their audacity and
their originality. They produced little and
slowly. Although they suffered continuously
from the Insufficiency of their material resour
ces, they considered the Increase of wealth as
only a painful necessity. But they sought to
attain in everything a difficult model of per
fection artistic, literary, moral or religious.
The artistic character of nearly all the Indus
tries of the paRt, the importance which the
decorative arts, matters of personal morality,
ceremony and form possessed formerly, are
proof of this. Quality was then more Import
ant than quantity, and all the restraints to
which these civilizations submitted and which
astonish us to-day were only the necessary
ransom of the perfection which they so
greatly desired.
We have turned the world In which our
ancestors lived upside down, and America has
taken the leading part in this movement. We
have made the multiplication of wealth the
main object of existence. We have won liberty
and destroyed nearly all the restraints of other
days. But we have been obliged to abandon
nearly all the ideals of perfection—artistic,
moral or religious venerated by our ancestors.
We have been obliged to sacrifice quality to
quantity.
We no longer know where we stand because
we continual!, confuse these two standards of
measure quality and quantity — sometimes
making use of one and sometimes of the other.
We really desire two different things. That is
why 11 comparisons made between Europe and
America to decide which of the two worlds is
superior to the other never reach any definite
conclusion.
America is not the monstrous country some
Europeans affirm it to be, where people dream
of nothing but making money, nor is it the coun
try of miracles so extravagantly praised by
some of its admirers. It is the country where
tiie principle of quantity, which has become so
Important all over the world during the last
one hundred and fifty years, has won its most
brilliant victory.
In the same way it Is not accurate to say that
Europe represents as compared to barbarous
America the ower of civilization; or to affirm
on the other hand that the old world is worn
out and rendered impotent by unchangeable
routine. The ancient societies of Europe have
also entered upon what I may call the quanti
tative phase of history.
Which of the two civilizations—the qualita
tive or the quantitative- should we accept as
an ideal? Is the development of tile world we
see to-day marvellous epic of progress or is
it a sombre tragedy of decadence? Alas! it
Is not probable that man can end tills cruel
uncertainty as long as the present phase of our*
civilization lasts, for this uncertainty is the
price of the conquest of the earth which mail
has accomplished, and especially of the prodigi
ous development of
America.
How many times,
as I travelled across
the vast plains of
the two Americas,
seeing day after day
endless fields of grain
or coffee plants
spread out beyond
reach of the eye, 1
have thought as a his
torian of antiquity of
those tiny pieces of
marble worked with
such exquisite perfec
tion by tne Greeks,
which we have admir
ed In our museums.
The Greeks attained
such marvellous per
fection a the arts be
cause at a certain mo
ment they renounced
their ambition to ex
tend their empire
over the earth and
Its wealth. We have
conquered with the
railways these im
mense deserts because
we have renounced
so many artistic and
moral p e r f e c tions
which were the glory
of the ancients. In
the light of this idea
I seem to better com
prehend both the an
cient civilization and
our epoch. If the
the ancient civiliza
tions, which carried
too far the desire of
perfection, ended by
exhaust ing their
strength in the pur
suit of an object at
once limited and im
possible, are not the
civilizations of to-day,
which allow them
selves to be carried
away by the mania
of expansion, speed
and quantity,destined
to end in a new bar
barism jth gross and
violent?
I say, therefore, that if you must pursue
quantity do not forget the value of quality.
The mere production of quantity without regard
to quality, whether in foodstuffs or manufac
tured articles, may become an abuse that will
reduce man to a new type of savage.
Modern industry has succeeded in multiply
ing the production of wealth in proportions
which would seem fantastic to a man of the
eighteenth century. From the point of view
of quality modern industry is engaged in per
petrating a colossal fraud upon the world. It
confuses originals and imitations so thoroughly
rj. ’ rfofai*
tifTi/WM
m
WMWi'
■ •
( K
\ H
L •/
l f
'■e A/S?
hm
Professor Guglielmo Ferrero.
that no one can distinguish between them.
You imagine you are buying rare and
curious Hindu or Japanese articles? They
were manufactured in some dingy manufactur
ing centre of Europe. Articles of Parisian lux
ury, fine English cloth, etc., are made in every
country in Europe. The souvenirs that Euro
pean travellers carry back from the East were
originally manufactured in Europe, in the
Italian province of Lombardy they manu
facture vast quantities of Smyrna rugs and
export them to the Orient. The problem of
origin becomes still more mysterious when we
come to objects of great value, "objets de
luxe,” upon which chemistry expends all the
magic power of Its manipulations, such as
perfumes, liqueurs, furs, and even Jewels. For
my part, I have never heard a more curious
conversation than that of men who understand
some branch of this commerce thoroughly and
consent to reveal the little secrets of It. The
processes which are employed to-day to give
the public the illusion of superior quality when
It is really only getting cheap quantity are
truly of an unheard-of complexity and refine
ment. How much genius has it not required
to Invent all these Ingenious mystifications!
A phenomenon of such proportlqns is not the
effect of simple chance or an explicable wan
dering of the mind. It Is bound up with the
whole movement of modern civilization, which
everywhere has been the triumph of quantity
over quality. Some day, however, we shall
have to put a limit to this liberty of mystifying
the public, if we do not wish to destroy en
tirely the sense of beauty and the desire of
perfection. Sometimes we laugh at people who
wait before deciding whether an object is good
or beautiful to find out where It came from
and who made it. This blind confidence In
labels seems so stupid that in the eyes of many
persons it justifies the manufacturers who un
scrupulously profit by it. Yet is this not a
necessary precaution in order to distinguish
good things from mediocre and bad ones?
Most men are not gifted with a very sure
Instinct to enable them to make this distinc
tion. They learn to do it little by little by
comparing the objects they handle with cer
tain examples which serve as a standard. The
blind confidence In certain labels with wliich
we reproach ordinary people is only the desire
of finding a standard of quality.
No doubt the perfection of these models is
not absolute. It is certain that neither Jap
anese porcelain nor Persian rugs represent a
level of perfection which can never be sur
passed. They are models of a relative perfec
tion, like all other products of human labor
which have acquired as a result of long effort
a great reputation. But simply for this reason
they may serve for a certain time either as
standards to measure the quality of objects
of the same class or as stimulants to better
work.
They are, therefore, one of the most im
portant factors of progress. They can never
play this important role, however, if they are
continually falsified, as happens to-day. Good
things and poor things are so mixed up together
that it is almost impossible to distinguish be
tween them, and we finish by judging the
quality of an object by its price instead of fix
ing the price according to its quality. In
American newspapers we find many advertise
ments which recommend certain objects by
declaring that they are the dearest in the
world. Because they are the dearest they
must be the best! Is it necessary to say to
what dangers we are exposed If we adopt this
standard to measure the quality of articles?
Nations and Industries which have created
fine models of workmanship should be able s,
protect their authenticity not only In their own
Interest, but in the general interest of civiliza
tion. We are working for progress In th«
highest sense when we provide means of dis
tinguishing really beautiful and really good
things from imitation. The task is not easy,
The resistance which such a simple remedy ai
a declaration of origin meets proves this. Mod
ern society is such an entanglement of contra
dictory interests that even the nations whose
products are Imitated in the greatest number
have much difficulty in organizing an effect
ive protection. The spirit of the times favors
cheap imitations. This situation will never
be improved unless we modify certain ideas
which are to-day very popular. We must learn
to give more importance to quality in every
thing.
Nations have succumbed to-day to the blind
tyranny of numbers. Take, for instance, ths
statistics of export in any country. We ar«
satisfied, as a rule, simply to compare figures.
When the figures increase, that is progress;
when they diminish, that is called decadence,
and the nations which can show the largest
figures are considered to be marching at tha
head of civilization. These judgments which
only take account of quantity seem to me a
little too simple. Without doubt quantity Is a
force; it has always been one; It Is especially
a force to-day in an epoch which tends espe
cially to exploit rapidly large territories and
to organize enormous armies. Nations which
can produce much very quickly, even if tney
produce poor things, enjoy to-day advantages
that past ages did not know. Even nations
which have inherited the traditions of ancient
civilization are obliged to consider this situa
tion. But quantity, while being a force and s
great one, should not be the force unless met
wish to be transformed into simple wealth
producing machines.
We must examine more closely commercial
and industrial statistics and understand th«
elements on which they are based. The ex
portation of raw material and the exportatlot
of manufactured products may equally swell
the statistics, but they have a very different
social and moral significance. Among the
manufactured products which people exchange
between themselves there are also considerable
differences. The original industries which are
the result of long national effort should noi
be confused with the imitative industries ol
other nations, for the first are the manifesta
tions of the true creative energy of the coun
try. I do not understand why people who cap
manufacture a million dollars’ worth of prod
ucts of an original industry should be consid
ered inferior to a people which can sell three
or four times the amount of imitations of that
industry.
I Why Department Stores Cut Prices and Have ‘‘Bargain
Some interesting Secrets Behind the Scenes
Revealed by Mr. E. VV. Bloomingdale, Counsel
for the New York Retail Dry Goods Association.
M
i
ILL OWNERS, manufacturers and
“middle men” would veiy much
like to fix the price ihat the
public shall pay for their goods. The
habit of the department stores of cutting
prices and having bargain sales upsets
their plans. At the recent session of the
National Civic Federation, Mr. Edward
\Y. Bloomingdale, counsel for the New
York Retail Dry Goods Association, was
asked lo answer these two questions-
Should a manufacturer be permitted
lo fix the price at which the retailer
may sell to the consumer?
I the price-cutting of department
stores a benefit or an injury to the
public?
By E. VV. Bloomingdale.
N in article published recently an amusing
attempt is made to defend the fixed price
theory Obviously this article was written
by a person without commercial experience,
but rain* r Uv a special pleader to support pre-
Conceived opinions. The reasons given in justi
Illation of the position the writer lias assumed
are that ill the cutting of prices Is unfair to
the manufacturer; i2i unjust to other retailers,
and u>) that it is an injury to tiie consumer
If tlit- last of these alleged reasons were true
the question would be a serious one. if it were
true that the Interests of the retailer mil re
toilers I were unjustly prejudiced. It would be
important but if the only point involved is the
self-interest ot the individual manufacturer, as
against the interests of tin- rest of tile com
niunitj (and I claim that such is the fact).
then the proposition is hardly worthy of eon
si.leratiiiii in this presence.
Of all the e,intentions made, that which pre
tends to claim that tiie interest of the buying
Punlit, is injured is tiie most lenuous. To sus
tain this view it is urged that the purchaser
may lie tempted by the cut price to purchase
some other articles at a higher percentage of
profit than is charged on the leader, or. that a
reduction In profits may narrow the avenues
of distribution and tiie consumer may thus have
greater difficult' in procuring the article at ad
tin many instances this would be a direct ad
vantage to the consumer), or. worst of all. "the
manu!c -1 orer nay be tempted to deteriorate
the a:th e in order to preserve tiis own pr< fits.'
Tiie last sixteen words are quoted from the
newspaper article referred to. and therein lies
the r ■ crux of the mannf.i'-turers' solicitude.
Tin- sii
blindiai
Uishleratlon is
the
:* J;t I'll -
cturers* pro
To main
tain these Is
the b:isi
is nnd I'ispir
•
>n of ;«'! theso tear^ shed
for tin*
dear abused
public, and it
is the fear of
tl
a ini tt ion of
th»
»se profits
that actuates
the owi
»er of a pro
prie
■tnry article
■ in participa-
tins in
the carrying or
i of an ext<
-nsive and ex-
►ensive
i-aqupaign i
n f
avor of pri
i-e regulatii n.
r '»r the
popularizing (
>f a lower
retail selling
is
jin rurally f
oll<
►wed by a
pressure ilpou
a roa
nufacturer !
For
a reduction in his sell
up fisru
re.
Why
should the
ma
nufnetu rer
lie permitted
o coutr
ol the price
at
which the
retailer sells?
When he parts with his property he does so
for his personal gain; when lie gets ids price
he has parted not only with ownership but
with control. lu the article he is quoted
as saying in effect "that which I create,
in which 1 embody ray experience, to which 1
give my reputation, is my property.” So it is
until lie parts with Ills property, but ail of these
elements are Included lu tiie price and go with
tiie title which passes when tile sale is made.
The artist who paints a picture or models a
piece of sculpture creates something in which
he also embodies Ids experience and to which
he gives Ills reputation, and ns well might he
claim that the thing created continues to be his
property and deny to tiie person who acquires
it the right to dispose of it at any price lie can
got. lest It militate against his reputation.
The manufacturer of a proprietary article
does not consign his product to the dealer, nor
sell with tin- privilege of returning that which
remains unsold. The dealer pays for his goods
when he gets them and thereafter lie assumes
tiie entire risk. If he miscalculates and pur
chases more than his trade will absorb, or if
tile demand for the article diminishes, or if the
season for their use is unpropitious. and they
lie upon his shelves, who is to bear tiie loss and
what is to become of him when Ids bills fall
due and lie can point only to unsalable mer
chandise to satisfy Ids creditors?
i'nless tills title, which tile purchaser ac
quires. Is clear, absolute, and without restric
tion. tiie stock of the merchant is to a certain
extent without substantial value. Take a con
crete case: A customer goes to ids hank to ob
tain a loan of five thousand dollars. The
banker asks what security tin- applicant has to
offer, and ho answers that he has a stock of
staple merchandise, costing twenty thousand
I'lillars. ad paid for. Tiie banker replies. "Why
don't you reduce your stock and realize money
•-HI 'T
r/%
s*
. jvSL '
The Cut-Price Bargain Sales Which Manufacturers Want to Put an End To.
in that way?” "Well,” says the customer,
“trade is a little slow just now and my goods
are not moving.” "But,” says the banker,
“why not reduce your prices 5 per cent to stim
ulate your business?" “I'd like to do that,"
says Mr. Merchant, "but you see I am not per
mitted to sell except at certain prices fixed by
the manufacturer." The banker's reply is ob
vious; “Suppose your loan falls due and you
are still unable to sell your goods at the fixed
price, how am I to realize on my security?"
and ihe interview is closed.
One of the fallacies of the claim for this spe
cial privilege to the manufacturer to fix the re
tail prices lies in the assumption that the arti
cle is commercially worth the price sought to
be put upon it. An extensive advertising cam
paign may acquaint a large number of people
with the fact that they enu get a good watch
for a dollar, but that alone does not make tiie
watch intrinsically worth a dollar. The same
measure of quality may be contained in a
watch selling at seventy-five cents, the reason
being that in the former the expense of adver
tising is incorporated in the price, while in the
latter it is not. The retailer, having an expert
knowledge of qualities and wishing to put arti
cles of iike merit on an equal basis may well
believe that in charging a dollar for the adver
tised watch he is really asking the customer to
pay for an element which is of no value to him,
that both watches are of equal value as watches
anil that fair dealing compels him to charge
the same price for one as for the other.
But a one-price standard is not maintained,
even by the producer. In nearly every in
stance his selling list is subject to a sliding
scale of discounts, according to the quantity
purchased, so that the 'proprietor of a big de
partment store who can buy in maximum units
owns his goods at a lower figure than the small
dealer, for whom the manufacturer now shows
such great commiseration.
One of the most generally sold commodities
In this country is cigarettes. The grAitest pro
portion of these gre manufactured and sold by
the American Tobacco Company, which, since
the decree of the I'nited States Supreme Court,
may no longer be considered a trust. Tiie usual
ten-cent box of cigarettes, which costs to manu
facture three cents at the outside, costs the
dealer 7 76-100 cents a box. in the quantities
usually bought by the retailer, thus affording
him a gross profit of 23 2-10 per cent, which is
not a living profit in a business of limited vol
ume. To the larger dealer, who can use solid
cases of a single brand, there is a rebate or
discount, increasing in amount, which, in the
case of those who buy in ihaximtim volume,
such as the United Cigar Stores Company or
the great news agencies or one or two others,
reaches a difference in cost of about 10 per
cent, so that here we have a situation in which
the big man makes a handsome profit,,while the
little dealer starves to death.
Nor is this the only method by which the
manufacturer maintains a double standard. A
well-known article of common use. nationally
advertised, is sold in quantities by the manu
facturer at 60 cents, to be retailed under the
producer's trade-mark at $1.00 This same
manufacturer puts out a similar article of
equal intrinsic value, costing about the same to
produce, but which is offered under another
name at 47H cents wholesale, and is generally
sold at 69 cents retail. The identity of these
two articles is thoroughly well known to the
trade, the only difference being that one Is ad
vertised and the other is not, and yet this
manufacturer Is high in the councils of the
American Fair Trade League.
If we concede to the manufacturer the right
to fix both the price at which be sells to the
retailer and the price at which the article may
be sold by the retailer to the consumer, he, the
producer, can establish Ills market by exten
sive advertising, making it practically compul
sory for the retailer to handle his product even
though the margin allowed be too close for safe
merchandising, for the retailer must handle an
article for which there is a demand.
We thus hand over the destiny of the retail
merchant to the persons who control his sources
of supply, for this principle, if allowed, would
not necessarily be applied only to advertised
goods but to all merchandise. Perhaps at the
beginning the manufacturer would allow a
D R GEORGEI
ish author an
in England.
GEORGE BRANDES. the famous Dan
and critic, lias been lecturing
One evening Dr. Braudes
•vas to lecture on Nietzsche, the strange Ger
man philosopher who turned the old-fashioned
ideas of life upside down. The equally eele
rated Mr Bernard Shaw introduced the lee-
turer. and oecupled more attention with his
iiitroduetion than the visitor with his lecture.
These are some of Mr. Shaw's remarks;
Bv Bernard Shaw.
r HIS meeting, like all other meetings of
tiie same kind in England, is field just
about thirty years too late. It i> very
curious how punctual we are In our lateness—
always a quarter of a century or so behind. We
are now beginning to know what we ought to
Know about tin teachings of Nietzsche, about
twenty-five or thirty years after they were
launched upon the world. It is realty a great
pity that we could not be a little more up to
time. In this Instance It is partly due to the
fact that we are not able to take on more than
one idea at a time. Thirty years ago we ought
to have been discussing the ideas of Nietzsche,
wlieu we were busy over the ideas of Darwin.
What Darwin did was to make us familiar with
the conception of mau as a super-monkey, and
it was Nietzsche wlu> pointed out that the
super-monkey was pretty certain in the long-
run to become the super man.
Now we have become familiar with the idea
of wfiat we call a suj>er-raan. although Nietzsche
was not tiie only one responsible for the name
But tiie more I look around and see the ap
palling incompetence of men to deal with the
problems of tiie world, the more I see the way-
in w hich the capacity of men is being beaten by-
tile political, the social, the religious problems
forced upon us by our own species, the more I
begin to wonder whether what will set us right
will be a super-man at ait. For evolution does
not proceed endlessly on the same line of ex
periments. It began with fishes, and ended by
making some very decent fishes—and then gave
up the job.
It tried birds, and afterwards went on wi.h
something else. Do not let your conceit as
super-monkeys carry you away, for I am be
ginning to think that, if we do not waken up.
Nature will try something else than man. and
that the Improvement on man may not be a
super-man. but something of which we have no
conception, which will wipe us out—and serve
us r.ght.
If Dr. Braudes were a nobody it would not be
necessary for me to introduce him to you. I
-■; mid be able to say that he needed no intro
duction As a matter of fact. Dr. Braudes has
been know-n as one of the most distinguished
critifts in Europe, and therefore, under ordinary-
circumstances. we might presume that an ordi
nary F.ritish audience has never heard of him.
But I may assume that some of you have heard
of him before. His real distinction is not that
he has a profound knowledge of the literature
of Europe, not that he is a very learned man.
but that he is a groat critic and recognizes a
man of genius instinctively. And that is where
ail our own critics fail.
When Richard Wagner mine, all our critics
informed us that his was not music at all. and
that he was only a perverse charlatan. You
will remember the nu-ss they made of Ibsen—
1 will not speak of later men of genius. Some
. of them have had their share of misfortunes.
The real distinction which Dr Brandes has,
and which all tiie rest of the critics have not —
Is that he knows a man of genius as soon as he
sees him.
more liberal margin, to facilitate the introduc
tion of his merchandise, but after liis goods
were well introduced he could, by raising his
own prices or reducing the fixed retail price to
stimulate sales, drive the retailer out of ex
istence.
We have seen the result of this condition o!
affairs in the tobacco business of this city,
where hundreds of small dealers have been
literally forced out of business because, on the
classes of merchandise mostly in demand, the
margin of profit is not sufficient to support the
enterprise.
I have not attempted to set forth nil of Hit
arguments nor elaborate any of them that
have occurred to me, which, in my opinion,
are in opposition to the principle of permit
ting. or would make it unsafe to allow, the
manufacturer to fix the retailer’s price, but i
hope I have suggested some reasons why such
a rule should not be established.
While I have addressed myself to a consid
eration of tiie issue as it affects those who de
sire the freedom to conduct their business ac
cording to their own economic ideas, I think
it applies equally to those merchants who have
neither the courage nor the acumen to object
to the limitations which would be placed upon
them. Every merchant should be prepared for
time of stress and be in a position to adjust
his business to the necessities of the hour, for
every man who has invested his capital or his
credit in any commercial venture at some time
may be compelled to offer his merchandise at
prices that will transmute it into cash to en
able him to meet his engagements.
The writer of the article before referred to
expresses a great interest in the consumer.
He argues that the best way to help this un
fortunate individual is to amend the law so
that in his dealings with the retailer he must
pay a higher price set upon a given article
by a third person who takes no part In the
trade.
I do not believe that the consumer class de
sires any such protection. I am rather of
opinion that he prefers, and that his best In
terest is. to be able to supply bis wants at the
lowest price at which be can buy honestly ac
quired merchandise of any given standard of
quality. The name on the package means
nothing to him. excepting that it is a conven
ient way of indicating the nature of the thing
be wants.
It must be conceded that a lower price tends
to a reduction of the cost of living, provided
tiie prices are not reduced merely for the pur
pose of crowding out a competitor, to enable
those who deal in the product to afterwards
compel the consumer to pay more for liis
goods. Obviously no mere distributor could ac
complish such a purpose How. then, even if
the reduction in price is merely temporary, can
the consumer be injured by being able to buy
the article for less money in the meantime?
I dismiss as entirely without foundation the
suggestion, timorously put forth, that the
dealer raises his prices on other articles to
balance the account. In these days nf sh->
competition such an expedient would be ap
parent to the most inexperienced shopper. It
is just as usual to sell unidentifiable merchan
dise at a special price as it is to thus offer an
advertised article. The daily advertisements
in the newspapers will prove this.
It is always the public that gets the advan
tage of these price reductions and bargain
sales. To deprive them of it would be to place
a burden on the entire community and com
pel the retailer to take a profit which he does
not want and has no desire to exact, and at
the same time transform the merchant into a
mere automaton, a channel through which the ,
manufacturer could distribute his product.