ANTITRUST LEGISLATION AND EQUAL RIGHTS LABOR UNION EXEMPTIONS EXTRACTS FROM REMARKS OF HON. J. HAMPTON MOORE OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MAY 19, 28 JUNE 2, 4, 5, AND 27, 1914 WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1914 EXTRACTS FROM REMARKS OF HON. J. HAMPTON MOORE, Antitrust Legislation and Equal Rights. Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOORE. Is the gentleman referring in his second classification to the line on page 8 of the bill which refers to “a class of corporations which the commission will designate"? Mr. COVINGTON. I am. Mr. MOORE. That is the second class which the gentleman is now explaining? Mr. COVINGTON. Yes. Mr. MOORE. May I ask if this bill does not apply wholly to corporations other than common-carrier corporations which are now subject to the supervision of the Interstate Commerce Commission? Mr. COVINGTON. Unquestionably, except in a single section. * Mr. MOORE. In the course of the gentleman's forceful speech he has referred several times to big business and little business. That means business of a corporation, whether big or little? Mr. COVINGTON. Unquestionably. And in that connection I want to say that I do not regard business as dangerous merely because it is big. The phrase was merely a term commonly used to apply to those great corporations in the interstate commerce of the country. Mr. MOORE. It does not refer to a business man who is not incorporated, or to business men who are not incorporated? Mr. COVINGTON. It does not. The business which ought properly to be affected by the operation of a trade commission is so nearly always operated by corporations that the committee did not think it wise to make the provisions of the bill apply to individuals. 66 Mr. MOORE. Just one more question. On page 5 the word corporation" is defined to mean a body incorporated under law, and also joint-stock associations and all other associations having shares of capital or capital stock or organized to carry on business with a view to profit. During a previous discussion in the House a question arose as to whether we should include in certain legislation a corporation publishing a socialistic newspaper, which had seven or eight thousand stockholders, in effect a paper published by a labor association. Would that be included amongst those corporations having shares of capital or capital stock or organized to carry on business with a view to profit? Would that be included amongst those subject to inquiry by and report to an interstate trade commission? Mr. COVINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I would not like to hazard an opinion upon whether a particular journal would or would not be included, because that might involve some sort of examination as to the precise method and manner of the business organization conducting the journal. I will say this, that I think I know what the gentleman is driving at. There was not any intention in the framing of that definition in this bill to create any exemptions for labor organizations or farmers' organizations, or any other sort of organizations that exist in the United States of America, because the proposed trade commission will not deal with any of them in such a way as to infringe their just rights. Mr. BORLAND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. COVINGTON. Yes. Mr. BORLAND. I might suggest to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MOORE] that those corporations included in this act must not only be corporations within the definition of corporations, but they must be engaged in commerce within the definition of commerce, and that means such commerce as Congress has the power to regulate under the Constitution. Mr. MOORE. But if the gentleman will look at page 5, he will find it refers to any association having shares of capital or capital stock, or organized to carry on business with a view to profit, which was certainly the case with regard to that socialistic newspaper, which has seven or eight thousand stockholders, which was especially exempted from certain operations of the postal laws. THE CLAYTON-WEBB ANTITRUST BILL. Thursday, May 28, 1914. Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the chairman of the committee whether by this paragraph it is intended to reach mail-order houses? Mr. WEBB. It means to embrace everybody who operates in interstate commerce and discriminates in price for the purpose of destroying or wantonly injuring a competitor. Mr. MOORE. Suppose a large mail-order house in Chicago was circularizing the country and should enter into competition with the crossroads store in the gentleman's State, would the department store, or the mail-order house in Chicago, be liable to prosecution under this act? Mr. WEBB. If it discriminated in prices for the purpose of destroying or wrongfully injuring such crossroad store, it would be guilty. Mr. MOORE. And that is the purpose of the act? Yes. Mr. MOORE. Suppose one large department store in Washington in the ordinary competition with smaller stores should on certain days of the week advertise that shoes would be sold at a reduced price, a price far below that at which shoes were sold in hundreds of smaller stores, would the passage of this act enable the smaller stores to prosecute the department store? Mr. WEBB. I think it would be very hard in that case to prosecute the department store under the terms of the law. It would sell the same shoes to everybody at the same price, and it would be difficult to prove that it was being done to put the small competitor out of business. |