To deal with retail trade, local committees, numbering in all over 1,800, were set up, and the Board of Trade delegated to them the bulk of their powers under the act relating to retail sale. There were also io8 appeal tribunals to which the seller had the right of appeal against the decision of a local committee. The task of dealing with larger transactions of wholesalers or manufacturers affecting whole trades or industries was entrusted by the Board of Trade to a central committee, which worked through three stand ing committees : the investigation of prices committee, the com plaints committee and the standing committee on trusts. These standing committees in turn appointed sub-committees as required to deal with particular questions. The investigation of prices com mittee made investigations into the cost of production of various articles in all stages of their manufacture. Reports were published as parliamentary papers on agricultural implements and machin ery, aspirin, biscuits, boot and shoe repairs, brushes and brooms, clogs, costings in Government departments, furniture, gas appa ratus, matches, metal bedsteads, motor fuel, pottery, standard boot and shoe schemes, tweed cloth, worsted yarns, wool and the wool top-making trade. The complaints committee undertook the investigation of specific complaints and also investigated specific transactions brought to their notice.
The committee on trusts was responsible for obtaining inf orma tion as to the nature, extent and development of trusts and com bines. Numerous investigations were made. Mention may be made further of a provision contained in the Profiteering (Amendment) Act, 192o, which authorized the Board of Trade to approve suitable schemes submitted by persons representing a substantial proportion of those engaged in the production or dis tribution of goods to which the original act was applied limiting the profit to be allowed on such manufacture or distribution. Only two such schemes were actually approved.
Since the lapsing of the Profiteering Act in 1921, there has been no special legislation in Great Britain against profiteering except for the continuance of restrictions on the rent which may be charged for certain classes of houses. Public feeling, however, continued to be very susceptible on the question, especially when a rise of prices occurred. Various public inquiries have been con ducted into costs of production and distribution of foodstuffs and other articles of common consumption, the most important of these being (a) the inquiry of a committee appointed in 1922 under the chairmanship of Lord Linlithgow to enquire into meth ods and costs of selling and distributing agricultural, horticultural and dairy produce in Great Britain and the diminution of the dis parity between the price received by the producer and that paid by the consumer; (b) the inquiry of the royal commission on food prices appointed in 1925 and (c) the proceedings of the food coun cil appointed in 1925 following the report of the royal commission on food prices to watch over food prices and supplies. It may be
noted also that since 1923 an interdepartmental committee ap pointed by the Minister of Health and the president of the Board of Trade has been in being for the purpose of surveying the prices of building materials and receiving and considering complaints in respect thereof. (C. K. H.) United States.—Figures gathered by the Federal Trade Com mission show the situation in the United States during the World War period. In 1917 there was apparently no limit to the price purchasers were willing to pay, the condition being one of panic. In the next year profits were somewhat abated by government regulation.
During the war period oil companies circulated reports that the supply of gasolene was dangerously short, for the purpose of maintaining prices of that commodity while making "enormous" profits on fuel oil. Concerns bottling or canning vegetables, which had made future contracts, sometimes withheld portions of their output from delivery on such contracts and sold in the higher "spot" markets. In frequent cases licences were revoked by the Food Administration. The practice of such concerns in main taining re-sale prices for jobbers contributed toward maintaining the general high level of prices and increased profits in some in stances. The steel companies in 1917, prior to Government price fixing, made abnormal profits, and a number continued to make unusually heavy profits thereafter. The United States Steel Corp., which made 5% before the war, received 25% on investment in and ten smaller concerns made from 30% to 319% on their investments. Certain sulphur companies took advantage of the war demand for sulphur to raise their prices to such an extent as to reap net profits of approximately $15 a ton, which meant over 200% on investment in one case. The profits of tanners increased from two to five times, as they took advantage of the enormous demand for leather and exacted very high prices. The price of hides was rapidly advanced, notwithstanding that at the same time "great supplies were withheld from the public." High prices do not necessarily indicate excessive profits, but there is reason to believe that profiteering was common in ce ment, petroleum, lumber, farm implements, wool, clothing, sulphur, naval stores, rice, sugar, sand and gravel, raisins and other products, in addition to those already mentioned.