various State statutes prohibiting sales below cost. This may throw light on the feasibility of a Federal loss-limitation type of statute if occasion should develop for using that approach as a substitute for the McGuire Act. 3. On page 269 of the committee report there is a presentation of the divergent views of committee members on the extent to which competition rather than Government regulation should prevail in the so-called regulated industries. Without stating all of the reasons that appear in the report for this divergence, I call attention to one important reason, namely, that some members felt that the committee did not have a factual basis for recommending a general congressional review of the need for regulation or that the trend toward regulation should be checked or even reversed. I believe that this is another area which may call for reappraisal by Congress which from the very beginning has been the architect of the exemptions in the regulated industry field and therefore the appropriate body to inquire into developments since the statutes were enacted or last amended. This would permit a much firmer factual foundation for arriving at conclusions about whether, as several committee members felt, there is unnecessary restriction of competition through regulation of entry and minimum rates in the motor-carrier industry. 4. Patents: In the chapter on patent antitrust problems in the committee report, the committee was careful to say that "our task requires no full-scale analysis or evaluation of the patent system. A complete review of the myriad aspects of the patent laws would encompass interacting technological, economic, and social factors extending far beyond an appraisal based primarly on antitrust considerations." I invite the attention of this subcommittee to the George Washington University Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Foundation which is now engaged in making various factual studies in order to create a better understanding of the nature and value of the patent, trademark, and copyright systems. This is an educational, nonprofit foundation under the aegis of the George Washington University. I understand that the distinguished chairman of this subcommittee and Senator Kilgore have agreed to serve on the advisory council of the foundation which includes the following men of national statute representing the fields of commerce, education, science, manufacturing, finance, and the professions: Williard C. Asbury, vice president, Standard Oil Development Co.; Joseph W. Barker, president, Research Corp.; Vannevar Bush, president, Carnegie Institution of Washington; Cyrus S. Ching, Cyrus S. Ching Associates; John W. Davis, Davis, Polk, Wardwell, Sunderland and Kiendl; Luis de Florez, president, deFlorez Engineering Co.; Laurence B. Dodds, vice president, Hazeltine Corp.; Thomas K. Finletter, partner, Coudert Bros.; Lawrence R. Hafstad, Director, Reactor Development Division, Atomic Energy Commission; John M. Hancock, partner, Lehman Brothers; Learned Hand, judge, United States Circuit Court, Second Circuit (retired); Mervin J. Kelly, president, Bell Telephone Laboratories; Charles F. Kettering, chairman of the board, Kettering Foundation; David E. Lillienthal, industrial executive and consultant; Max McGraw, president, McGraw Electric Co.; David Sarnoff, chairman of the board, Radio Corp. of America; Glenn T. Seaborg, professor of chemistry, University of California; Edward R. Weidlein, president, Mellon Institute of Industrial Research; Charles E. Wilson, chairman of the executive committee of the board of directors, W. R. Grace & Co.; William T. Woodson, Woodson, Pattishall & Garner. I mention this because I believe this points in the right direction of acquiring the kind of factual information which is needed for evaluation of the American patent system. In order not to wanting in fullness of candor, I add that I have agreed to serve as a consultant to the director of the foundation and as an ex officio member of the advisory council. My experience as Cochairman of the Attorney General's Committee convinces me that the studies of the foundation will prove to be useful to this subcommittee in its consideration of the relation of the patent system to the public policy of the antitrust laws. 5. Foreign commerce: In this area there is similar need for factual data with reference to American investment abroad and other problems indicated in the statements, in chapter 2 of our committee report, of the Department of State, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, and the Foreign Operations Administration. I realize that certain studies of this nature have already been made by Government agencies and I presume that further inquiry is continuing. This subcommittee, in my opinion, can be of great public service in engaging in similar activity in this area. Mr. OPPENHEIM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank you very much for your patience and cooperation with this committee, with some few exceptions. And we will now adjourn, to meet on Monday at 10 o'clock, when we will hear from William McChesney Martin, Jr., Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, and Governor Robertson, of the Federal Reserve System, and H. Earl Cook, Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Mr. Arthur J. Goldberg, general counsel of the CIO. Mr. OPPENHEIM. Mr. Chairman, I have one other document I would like to have inserted, the membership list of the Attorney General's National Committee To Study the Antitrust Laws. The CHAIRMAN. All right. (The list referred to is as follows:) MEMBERSHIP LIST OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S NATIONAL COMMITTEE TO STUDY Cochairmen : Stanley N. Barnes, Assistant Attorney General of the United States Prof. Walter Adams, department of economics, Michigan State College, East Prof. Morris A. Adelman, economics department, Massachusetts Institute of Tech- Cyrus Anderson, assistant counsel, Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., Pittsburgh, Pa. H. Thomas Austern, Covington & Burling, Washington, D. C. Cyrus Austin, Appell, Austin & Gay, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York 20, N. Y. Wendell Berge, Berge, Fox & Arent, Ring Building, Washington, D. C. Herbert W. Clark, Morison, Rohfeld, Foerster & Clark, San Francisco, Calif. Thomas F. Daly, Lord, Day & Lord, 25 Broadway, New York, N. Y. John W. Davis, Davis, Polk, Wardwell, Sunderland & Kiendle, 15 Broad Street, Prof. Walter J. Derenberg, Alexander, Maltitz, Derenberg & Daniels, 165 Broad- Raymond R. Dickey, Danzansky & Dickey, 1406 G Street NW., Washington, D. C. George E. Frost, 135 South La Salle Street, Chicago 3, Ill. Fred E. Fuller, Fuller, Harrington, Seney & Henry, Toledo, Ohio Clinton S. Golden, Solebury, Bucks County, Pa. Prof. Charles O. Gregory, University of Virginia Law School, Charlottesville, Va. Prof. Clare E. Griffin, School of Business Administration, University of Michigan, Prof. Milton Handler, 445 Park Avenue, New York 22, N. Y. Edward F. Howrey, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D. C. George E. Hale, Wilson & McIlvaine, 120 West Adam Street, Chicago, Ill. Prof. Alfred E. Kahn, Economic Department, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. Kenneth Kimble, 1701 K Street NW., Washington, D. C. Francis R. Kirkham, Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, 225 Bush Street, San Francisco 4, Calif. George P. Lamb, Kittelle & Lamb, Washington, D. C. Jack I. Levy, Sonnenschein, Berkson, Lautmann, Levinson & Morse, 77 West Mason A Lewis, Lewis, Grant, Newton, Davis & Henry, Denver 2, Colo. Breck P. McAllister, Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, 2 Wall Street, New York, N. Y. Richard B. McDermott, Williams, Boesche & McDermott, Tulsa 3, Okla. Gilbert H. Montague, 67 Wall Street, New York, N. Y. Prof. Sherman Peer, Ludlowville, R. D., N. Y. Prof. James A. Rahl, School of Law, Northwestern University, 357 East Chicago Avenue, Chicago, Ill. David W. Robinson, Robinson, Robinson & Dreher, Columbia, S. C. Prof. Eugene V. Rostow, School of Law, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Charles B. Rugg, Ropes, Gray, Best, Coolidge & Rugg, 50 Federal Street, Boston, Mass. Albert E. Sawyer, 56 Beaver Street, New York, N. Y. Prof. Louis B. Schwartz, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Philadelphia, Pa. David T. Searls, Vinson, Elkins, Weems & Searls, Houston 2, Tex. Bernard G. Segal, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, 1719 Packard Building, Philadelphia, Pa. Herman F. Selvon, Loeb & Loeb, Los Angeles, Calif. Whitney North Seymour, Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, 120 Broadway, New York, N. Y. Morrison Shafroth, Grant, Shafroth & Toll, Denver, Colo. William Simon, 1001 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D. C. Prof. Sumner H. Slichter, Economics Department, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Blackwell Smith, Smith, Sargent, Doman, Hoffman & Grant, 521 Fifth Avenue, New York, N. Y. John Paul Stevens, Rothschild, Stevens & Barry, 120 South La Salle Street, Chicago, Ill. Prof. George J. Stigler, National Bureau of Economic Research, 261 Madison Avenue, New York 16, N. Y. Jerrold G. Van Cise, Cahill, Gordon, Reindel & Ohl, 63 Wall Street, New York, N. Y. Sinclair Weeks, Secretary of Commerce, Washington, D. C. Curtis C. Williams, Jr., Jones, Day, Cockley & Reavis, Cleveland, Ohio. Laurence I. Wood, counsel, apparatus sales division, General Electric Co., 205 East 42d Street, New York 17, N. Y. The CHAIRMAN. We will adjourn now. (Whereupon, at 12 noon, the committee adjourned until Monday, June 13, 1955, at 10 a. m.) ANTITRUST AND MONOPOLY PROBLEMS MONDAY, JUNE 13, 1955 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:30 a. m., in the caucus room, Old House Office Building, Hon. Emanuel Celler (chairman) presiding. Present: Representatives Celler, Rogers, McCulloch, and Scott. Also present: Herbert N. Maletz, chief counsel and Kenneth R. Harkins, cocounsel. The CHAIRMAN. The committee meeting will come to order. There has been submitted to the committee a copy of a communication from Price Waterhouse & Co., which was addressed to the International Cooperative Petroleum Association. This letter refers to the Iranian Consortium and is dated February 28, 1955. It was sent by Price Waterhouse to Lloyd R. Marchant, general manager of the International Cooperative Petroleum Association, 11 West 42d Street, New York City: Iranian consortium: In accordance with your request, we supplied you with two pamphlets containing information as to cost and other obligations incident to participation in the Iranian consortium and instructions with regard to the kind of information we required in order for us to determine whether or not, in our opinion, your company is an established American oil company of sufficient responsibility to undertake the obligations to be assumed in connection with the participation it seeks in the consortium. You have sent us the financial and other information we requested. These data have been reviewed by us in the light of the participation your company has advised us it seeks. We have accepted without audit all the data you furnished us as representing a fair and complete disclosure pertinent to your responsibility to undertake the obligations required to be assumed in connection with the participation your company seeks in the consortium and to your being an established American oil company. Nothing came to our attention during the course of our review which indicated the necessity for us to conduct an audit. The facts with regard to the operation and ownership of your company as set forth in the information which is sent to us raised the question whether it could be deemed to be included in the term "other established American oil companies" as that term is used in the so-called participants agreement. We have obtained advice from the five American members of the Iranian consortium as to the meaning they intended that term to have in such agreement; and, on the basis of such advice, and of such information which your company sent to us, we are of the opinion that that term (with the meaning which such American members intended it to have) as used in such agreement does not include a corporation such as your company. As you know, we were engaged for this purpose by the American members of the Iranian consortium at the suggestion of the United States Department of State. Pursuant to instructions, we are sending a signed original copy of this |