REPLIES TO CARD AND SCHEDULE INQUIRIES. 391
Two methods presented, one better than the other—The export
manager of a large rolling-mill company states the following:
These would be two distinct schemes. The first would imply merely a joint
selling organization (not really a combination) with certain limited advantages
 over isolated individual effort. The second would mean a combination
with advantages covering the object directly in view, namely, meeting foreign
sompetition, and coordinating the export activities from the ground up—(1)
production, (2) selling, and (3) delivery.
Leave the decision to the business interests.—A high official of a
company engaged in selling printers’ supplies presents the following
discussion :

We think it may be safely left to the business associates whether competing
products shall be admitted. It is often difficult to determine whether different
products do compete and, if so, whether the competition is only in certain
features or In certain classes of work or under certain conditions. Further,
t is often advantageous to both seller and buyer to be able to offer a selection
 between different competing products, and, at times, the sale of a nonompeting
 product depends on the ability to sell some attachment or allied
product which does compete with some other. We do not think that restriction
s necessary. And abstractly it may be asked why a trade policy avowedly
lor the purpose, among others, of protecting competition should deny an opporunity
 for competition.
This reply was received from the president of a firm selling timerecording
 machinery:

The question of competition can safely be left to the men engaged in the
anterprise. The public can not suffer even if American-made goods of a competitive
 character are exported jointly and in large volume.
Make no distinction by law unless a conspiracy—A prominent
Chicago attorney states that—

The law should make no distinction between noncompeting and competing
products, providing always the combination, whether to promote export or
domestic trade, does not amount to &amp; conspiracy.

2. TYPICAL REPLIES IN FAVOR OF LIMITING MEMBERSHIP TO NONCOM-PETING
 PRODUCTS.—Less than 13 per cent of the total number giving
information in answer to this last division of the question believe
that membership in export combinations should be restricted to
dealers in noncompeting products. Those who hold this belief
present the following reasons in support of it.
Control by the few.—An exporter of tobacco who has had 15
years’ experience replies:

We believe that the combination or cooperative organization should be
restricted to trade in noncompeting products, for if competing concerns were
members of this organization, it would not be long, in our opinion, until one
or two of them had all the business and used the organization to the detriment
of other competing concerns.
Restraint of trade—One of the partners of an exporting house
thinks that the organization—-*
 * * ghould be restricted to noncompeting lines, otherwise it would create
# combination in restraint of trade.
Cooperation impossible between dealers in other than noncompeting
 products—A manufacturers’ export agent concludes that
membership should be restricted to—

* * * poncompeting products, because you could never get proper coopera.
tion on any other conditions. Say there are two competitive concerns in the