Mr. Edward Rector,
1958 McCormick Building,
My dear Mr. Rector:—
I have read with great interest your letter to Mr. Milton Tibbetts, dated June second. I am sending you a copy of a pamphlet which I am sending out in an effort to create an interest in this extraordinary situation.
No manufacturer of a specialty article consideres his goods sold until they are sold to the consumer. The curious thing about the whole matter is that the Court has taken the view that an article is sold when it is sold to the wholesaler or to the retailer by the manufacturer. It is not sold at all until it is sold to the consumer actually, and it is a very wrong conception by the Courts of what constitutes a sale.
If I appoint an agent to sell my goods, I sell direct to the consumer, and hence am within the law; but if a manufacturer desires to use the long-established natural channels of commerce, the wholesalers and retailers, and fix their fee for handling as he fixes the fee for his agent (which the wholesalers and retailer really are) then he comes in conflict with the decisions of the Courts because the Courts have said that an article is sold when it is sold to the wholesaler or retailer.
In the recent decision in the Sanatogen Case, the Supreme Court stood five to four. I am satisfied, from hearing the elaborate discussions at a meeting yesterday, that if the Supreme Court could understand and have thoroughly explained to them, our views, that they would not regard what we are seeking as in restraint of trade.
I entirely endorse your views as to price maintenance in every way, shape and manner. The value of price maintenance to the consumer and to the small retailer is of inestimable value and the Courts I feel will ultimately have to take our point of view, as expressed by you, into consideration.
Yours very truly,
Henry B. Joy