ceivable field "from chewing gum to automobiles", to quote the Goodwin plan prospectus. There is, however, to be only one brand or make in each field. The individual products have not as yet been selected, but the selection will be made in the near future, probably by January 1. The individual purchaser also agrees to keep certain evidences of her purchase, labels or coupons, which she is to turn in to the broadcaster once a month, and the broadcasters in turn in each church pool their evidences and send them in to the main office of the Goodwin Corporation. The Goodwin Corporation then turns in the evidences to the manufacturer, who returns to the Goodwin Corporation 321⁄2 percent of the retail sales price, and the Goodwin Corporation sends 2 percent of the retail sales price to the broadcasters for the use of their church or church society.

In announcing the plan the Goodwin Corporation claims that it will select only goods of "a high quality." It, therefore, must of necessity stand back of the type of goods selected. It also states that the plan is "definitely dedicated to upholding the principles of social justice for working men and women, as advocated by all church denominations." These principles of social justice as stated in the prospectus are the following:

1. The maintenance of a living wage to working men and women.

2. Reasonable working hours.

3. Reasonable working conditions.

4. A willingness to work toward a permanent maintenance of employment.

The Goodwin Corporation, therefore, not only gaurantees the one brand which it endorses to be of high quality but it also guarantees that the firms manufacturing this product shall abide by the principles as stated.

RECEPTION OF THE PLAN

The plan has received highest endorsements from leaders in the religious and social field, among them being some of our own people. It must be especially gratifying to the promoters of the plan to find the names of such men as Father John A. Ryan and Father James Fogarty of the Catholic University and the University of Notre Dame among the endorsers. Literally thousands of church organizations have already "signed up" with the Goodwin Plan and are awaiting the publication of the selected list. The latest information which we have from the Boston area is that 126 churches of various denominations in Greater Boston are cooperating in the plan, among them two Unitarian churches, and the response in other parts of the country has been equally great.

On the other hand, there have been church leaders who have been critical of the plan. Especially outstanding has been the criticism of the plan in The Christian Century, which has published two articles, one by Georgianna Merrill Root in the issue of November 8 under the title "Are Church Women Being Exploited?" and the second an editorial entitled "The Goodwin Plan" in the issue of November 22. The Christian Century criticizes the commercialization of religion in an editorial, as well as the monopolistic aspects of the plan. It contends that despite its apparent success the plan will not be permanently successful, as the churches for 30 years have been gradually "developing a conscience on methods of raising church money."

The Christian Century's faith in the churches of the country is gratifying, but one cannot but be somewhat doubtful in view of the large number of churches which have promised to adopt the plan.

WHY THE CHURCHES YIELD

The reasons for which the churches have taken up the plan are various. In the first place, there is the financial inducement. There is no question that if the plan succeeds there is a huge financial reward to the churches and incidentally to the Goodwin Corporation. The Goodwin Corporation prospectus indicates this by stating that 10 broadcasters in an average church with 10 families apiece and each family spending a minimum of only $5 per week on goods shown in the Goodwin catalog, would mean a $520 income for the church, for 20 broadcasters it would be $1,040 and for 50 $5,200 a year. The present financial burdens which many churches are carrying make it quite understandable that this amount of money is a tremendous inducement.

A second reason, and a much more laudable one than merely financial need, is the ethical standard promulgated in the plan. On the surface it seems to present a way by which the churches can make their social ideals effective. To quote an advertisement of the Goodwin Plan in The Christian Century written by Dr.

Walter Macpherson, of Joliet, Ill., "The social-justice program is the only practical means * * * whereby the Christian women of America can make effective their instinctive abhorrence of their silent partnership in the profit wrung from the masses by exploitation."

That there is something appealing in this aspect of the Goodwin Plan there is no doubt.

new.

CRITICISMS OF THE PLAN

The various criticisms of the Goodwin Plan have been foreshadowed in what has already been said. First of all, there is the general criticism, clearly brought out in The Christian Century editorial, that it is a commercializing of the churches. It is perfectly true, as advocates of the plan may well claim, that this is nothing The church fair or the solicing of adverisements and donations from local merchants is also a commercialization of the church. The difference is in degree rather than in kind. This is a wholesale commercialization. It definitely and specifically ties up the church and church people to certain manufacturers to the exclusion of their competitors. That there are practical difficulties of this kind, the advocates of the plan themselves admit. They agree, for example, that any church or any individual may cross off from their catalog list certain goods in which they desire to have another choice than that listed. This is to prevent the difficulty that might arise, for example, if one of the leading members of the church were the dealer in Chevrolets and the Ford happened to be the car that was chosen by the Goodwin Corporation. But even so there is no question but that the plan will be criticized from this point of view. The church, after all, is a specially privileged institution; it is free from taxation. The reason for these special privileges is that the church is assumed to be rendering a broad community service. If the church in place of rendering this broad community service to all becomes a center for propaganda of certain articles to the exclusion of others, it may well be contended that it is betraying its trust. While the temple may not become a den of thieves, it will certainly be considered to be usurping the place of the market. The manufacturers whose goods are not placed on the preferential list will not hesitate to criticize organized religion if in any large number of churches continue to support this plan, and such criticism will be exceedingly difficult to meet. The 2 percent commission in this case might well be compared to the mess of pottage for which the church has surrendered its sublime inheritance.

The second criticism which can be leveled at the plan has to do with the claim that the goods selected are of high quality. A careful reading of the Goodwin plan literature fails to disclose any method by which this quality is to be tested. It is true that the Goodwin plan reserves the right to change the brand selected if the quality falls off. Anyone who has studied the difficulties with which an impartial organization such as the Consumers' Research has met in trying to determine quality of goods, or anyone at all conversant with the careful studies made by the Government Bureau of Standards in Washington, knows that a determination of the quality of goods is no slight task.

The essence of the Goodwin plan is that the goods selected shall be nationally advertised, and it may well be that the highest quality goods are not nationally advertised. The temptation, too, for the Goodwin plan promoters will be to select goods which have the widest public sale, and that does not necessarily mean they are of the highest quality. The Goodwin plan does not anywhere claim that the goods selected will be the very best, and in using the term "high quality", its promoters undoubtedly escape any legal criticism, but, practically speaking the only way by which quality can be determined is by careful, continuous, scientific research, and there is no indication so far that the Goodwin Corporation has made careful provision for such objective study of the quality of the goods selected.

A third criticism, and one which should appeal most of all the the churches, is that regarding the ethical standards under which the goods selected are to be manufactured. This qualification for inclusion in the Goodwin catalog is one which its churchly defenders fall back on. It is, therefore, worth examination. Originally the qualifications were those outlined above:

1. The maintenance of a living wage to working men and women.

2. Reasonable working hours.

3. Reasonable working conditions.

4. A willingness to work toward a permanent maintenance of employment. These very general statements The Christian Century calls "nothing but sentimental selling talk." Impelled by such criticism, the Goodwin Corporation has recently issued a bulletin clarifying its position. The basic wage which the

Goodwin Corporation presumably maintains as reasonable is that outlined in the new N.R.A. Code. In such a position there is nothing in advance of what the Government is doing and which all manufacturers are pledged to adopt. But in a new bulletin the Goodwin Gorporation takes a short step in advance and promises that it will not recommend any manufacturer who does not agree that "a predetermined part of increased profits shall be awarded to employees as increased compensation." Five pages of the new bulletin are given over to an outline of this plan, but nowhere is it specifically stated what percentage is to be given to the employees or just how the ruling is to be enforced, except that the Goodwin Corporation reserves the right to examine the books of the corporation.

Reasonable working hours are defined as those which "will afford sufficient leisure for spiritual, educational, and cultural opportunities; to conform, in time of emergency, to those hours established by the Federal Government, but in no case to exceed an 8-hour day and a 6-day week." Since the Federal Government's present standard of reasonable working hours is much lower than an 8-hour day and a 6-day week, it would seem as though the schedule of hours as suggested by the Goodwin Corporation in times other than emergency is a step backward rather than forward.

Decent working conditions are defined as those which "relate to sanitation, light and ventilation, safety devices, protection against occupational diseases, injuries, and morality." These are high-sounding phrases, but in reality they mean little or nothing. Insofar as they have any meaning, in most States they are provided for by legislation. In the same connection, the Goodwin plan requires that its manufacturers shall abstain from employing child labor. It sets the limit for child labor as 16, but allows exceptions between 14 and 16 for a 3-hour per day employment between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Here, again, there is no advance over what is required under the N.R.A. and what it is hoped will be permanent Federal enactment when the child-labor amendment becomes law. And, finally, the Goodwin plan manufacturers are pledged to "work toward security and permanency of employment", which is defined as "agreeing to work toward the attainment and security and continuity of employment for workers." Of course, any employer would pledge to work toward security, but it is noticeable that no practical method toward this end is suggested. There is no indication of any special stabilization scheme or unemployment insurance or anything else which might be of practical importance.

And then as a means toward enforcing even these minimum standards, the Goodwin plan makes the following proposition:

* * *

We propose to set up a social-justice committee composed of one representative of each of Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish denomination from within our own organization, whose duty it shall be to see that the principles of social justice enunciated herein are understood, and accorded with in principle, by those manufacturers before we offer them the sales-stimulating service of the Goodwin plan, and to investigate and to endeavor to adjust any charges of violation of these principles in any such manufacturing establishment and in the event of failing to so adjust the matter, it shall be referred to an arbitration board of 3 to be selected, 1 by the Goodwin Corporation, 1 by the manufacturers, and the third by these 2; and our own committee shall consider the decision of this arbitration board to be final in all matters pertaining to the alleged violation of these principles; and in the event that a manufacturer refuses or fails to correct and adjust such offense within a period of 6 months, the Goodwin Corporation may cancel its contract with said manufacturer in accordance with provisions to this effect, which shall be incorporated in the contract with said manufacturer or manufacturers.

It will be noted that the committee called to pass on the application of principles is to be made up of men from within the organization and not of outside disinterested experts. It is doubtful if any group of outside disinterested experts of standing would attempt to enforce such a loosely drawn code as that outlined above, but, in any event, if the public is to have confidence in them they must be from without rather than from within the organization.

The Goodwin Plan promoters should be given credit, however, for adumbrating a policy which if more carefully thought out and freed from commercialization might well provide a means by which organized religion might impose its ethical standards on industry. The Consumers' League with its "white list" has made beginnings in this direction. If the churches of America, with the assistance of recognized experts in the field of economics and social relations, were to make a careful study of the industries of the country and propose a "white list" of their own with no commissions attached, they might make a very real contribution to

social justice. The 2 percent vitiates the plan and subjects it to severest criticism, and on top of the 2 percent there is the percentage paid to the promoters which would quite naturally bring in the question of commercial bias.

CONCLUSION

In view of the above facts, what should be the attitude of the churches when approached by the sales agent of the Goodwin plan? There is but one answer to this question. The Goodwin plan is a commercilization of religion; it presents very important practical difficulties in administration; it gives to its promoters, if successful, an almost monopolistic control of a very large market; it may well force out of business and into bankruptcy many manufacturers whose goods are of at least as good quality and produced under at least as good conditions as those selected. (This is especially true of the smaller manufacturer with a small budget for national advertising.) So far at least it presents no practical method of objectively selecting goods of "high quality," and, finally, its social-ethics provisions for industry are very general and in many respects not above those already incorporated in our various N.R.A. codes, and there is no effective objective method of judging the observance even of these very general standards. In a congregational system of church government, it is obvious that individual churches and individual societies within the churches will accept or reject the Goodwin plan as they see fit. We are here simply suggesting some of the considerations which should be borne in mind before we allow the money-changers completely to control the temple.

We protest the Goodwin plan to be distinctly antisocial both in its inception and operation.

It appears to be antisocial in its inception and the exposition of it by the representatives of the firm, in that according to the spoken statement of its representative appearing before the Ladies' Aid of Universalist Memorial Church on Tuesday, December 10, 1933, it presents as its individual program requirements for improved working conditions among the employees in the plants of the manufacturers subscribing to the plan, which are already a part of the body of factory inspection laws of many States and definitely so of the N.R.A. Codes. By so doing it is an example of the use of misleading statement so frequently employed by advertisers to create favorable receptions and impressions for the products being advertised.

It presents also that widely disseminated statement which is as apt to be untrue as true; namely, that the fact of Nation-wide advertisement is a guarantee of superior quality.

It would be as distinctly antisocial in its operation as in its inception in that it deliberately proposes and intends to maintain in the cost of the manufactured commodities it advertises 3 percent of the consumers purchase price from which the consumer can get no returns since the Goodwin plan adds nothing to the quality of the product nor in any way facilitates its distribution.

At the time of the present crisis in our national life when the extremely low point of consumer purchasing power is a matter of such great concern we condemn any plan which takes 3 percent of that purchasing power and gives nothing for it in return.

We therefore propose that those interested in this plan of raising funds for the support of their churches make a record of the cost of such products as appear on these lists and return to their churches 2 percent of that total thereby eliminating their gratuitous presentation of 1 percent of that amount to the Goodwin Advertising Co.

As a local matter the plan is distinctly anti-social in that any increase in the consumption of nationally advertised products automatically works against the local producer able to supply his market with products of equal quality at the same price.

Clara Wilson; Mrs. Frederic W. Perkins (wife of Dr. F. W. Perkins, pastor of Universalist National Memorial Church); Julia R. van Schaick (wife of John Van Schaick, Jr., editor of the Christian Leader); Donna P. Bonner; Eleanor Bonner, (pastor's assistant Universalist National Memorial Church); Mrs. L. C. Ricker.

VOICE OF THE PEOPLE

Expressions from readers upon topics of current or general interest are welcomed. Writing should be on one side of the paper only and should not exceed 300 words. Anonymous communications will not be printed and letters unaccompanied by self-addressed, stamped envelope will not be returned. The News reserves the right to shorten letters of excessive length.

To the Editor the News:

THE TUGWELL BILL

[Birmingham News, November 16, 1933]

The Age-Herald last Saturday and The News Sunday printed editorials that were patently anticonsumer and proadvertiser. I refer, of course, to the column-long_articles on the Tugwell bill, which seems to be so offensive to your papers. Inasmuch as the newspapers exert a powerful influence on the thought and policies of this country, I feel that some reply should be made to your unwarranted criticism. I also feel that the general public for whose benefit this law has been proposed, should understand your motives in printing these "editorials." In your issue of Monday, November 13, you have 19 remedies advertised in your paper, most of which would be controlled, if not banned, by the Tugwell act. As to the merits or lack of merits of the articles, I will refrain at this time from expressing an opinion.

It is an established fact that such products are almost uniformly conventional mixtures of well-known chemicals having practically no effective action on the diseases for which they are sold. Most of the chemicals have been known for decades, and even the formulas of many of the mixtures are not new, as often claimed to be. Even the name "patent" is misleading. The manufacturer, to get a patent on his remedy, would have to give away the secret of its composition, and he regards it as an invasion of his private rights when legislators, as a few have done, suggest that disclosing patent medicine formulas on the label would be in the public interest.

Mr. Editor, you must realize that such a bill as this would be a boon to longsuffering John Consumer. If this bill fails, your children and my children will pay the bill in bad health from poisoned foods, adulterated and impotent drugs, and poisonous and fraudulently advertised patent medicines and cosmetics. Í urge you not to miss this one chance to make your influence felt in the right direction. Inspect this proposed bill, item by item, and by all means publish such items as are objectionable, but do not forget your readers' interest entirely by a blanket indictment of the whole measure as you have done so far. Forget the money and revenue angle for the moment, and I am sure we will see eye to eye.

After all, the greatest good that will come from the passage of this bill will be the elimination of blatant cure-all remedies from the air. With such passage, you can again turn on your radio without being constantly besieged with names and claims of fake nostrums. You will agree, Mr. Editor, that this alone would warrant the enactment of this measure into law.

Birmingham.

WHAT IS TIMELY?

J. STUART STONE, Jr.

[Survey Midmonthly, December 1933]

"Untimely" is the reiterated refrain of the protests which drug and cosmetic manufacturers are pouring into the mails in opposition to S. 1944, the so-called "Tugwell bill" to extend and strengthen the Federal Food and Drug Act. (See Survey Midmonthly, October 1933, p. 383: Radio and Rouge.) In the midst of discourses on constitutionality and "the right and duty of self-medication" these plaints murmur repeatedly that business is in no position to stand revision. The same adjective, this time as "an untimely announcement", bobs up in a quoted statement by the New York Association of Private Hospitals, deploring the report by the Academy of Medicine on maternal deaths, to which reference is made elsewhere in these pages. Hearings on S. 1944 are scheduled to start December 7 before the Senate Subcommittee on Commerce. Consumers-which means all of us-will be well advised to obtain a copy of the bill itself from the Federal Food and Drug Administration and watch the papers and our Senators during a lively fight. In the process one may ponder the philosophy of timeliness. We have the old adage that it is never too late to mend. But is it ever too early, when, as the Department of Agriculture has shown, Americans are misled into spending millions of dollars for products that are inadequate or useless for their advertised purposes and sometimes poisonous, even deadly; or when, in the considered opinion of the Academy of Medicine, women are dying needlessly? Untimely for whom?