THE DEVELOPMENT OF CRITICISM
The trade practice provisions of no code were written with perfect unanimity in any industry. "Representation" required by the law and as interpreted by the NRA never brought a complete consensus of viewpoint as to what the "industry" believed it desirable to do "in its own regulation. Nor was the code-making process, with its utilization of pressure groups and its tendency for compromise decisions, a method which could produce trade practice provisions without disagreements within the NRA itself. These varying points of view and criticisms of the provisions of codes found expression in the preliminary hearings on codes and to some extent after they had been completed. So too, there was from the beginning at least a still small voice of criticism from outside.
Speaking in the large, however, relatively little criticism of the trade practice provisions of codes developed throughout the summer and early autumn of 1933; what criticism existed was submerged by the vast campaign of propaganda and ballyhooing coincident to the codemaking process in general, and to the Blue Eagle campaign in particular.
As codes grew in number, however, they underwent the critical inspection of many persons who became disturbed by the character of their contents. The decline in business activity during the latter part of the year created circumstances favorable to the release of critical comment. There developed, therefore, a crescendo of criticism which came to a climax with the gathering of Congress in January 1934. An important part of this