ANTI-TRUST LEGISLATION SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE S. GRAHAM OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MAY 26, 1914 WASHINGTON SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE S. GRAHAM, OF PENNSYLVANIA. The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union had under consideration the bill (H. R. 15657) to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other purposes. Mr. GRAHAM of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, in the partial discussion of these bills there has come to the surface a peculiar condition at which I must express my surprise. I have the greatest respect for the gentleman [Mr. GARDNER] who has just addressed us; but when he says that he will vote for this measure as it is, hoping that the Senate will whip it into proper shape, it occasions in me much surprise. The other day, when an amendment was offered to the bill for the creation of a trade commission, one of the gentlemen in charge said: It is dangerous to amend a bill when it is on its passage in the House. Your amendment is well conceived and probably should be embodied in this bill, but we will let that be done when it goes over to the Senate. Has this body lost all deliberative legislative power? Are we bound by the report of a committee so that we dare not touch the language of a bill to change or modify it? Must we simply be a recording machine to place in the RECORD by our votes the expression of the Chief Executive, made through a chosen committee? Must we simply yield everything up to the power of caucus rule, which shall tell us "You must pass this measure as it is; and, having received the imprimatur of the caucus, it is dangerous to meddle with it on the floor of the House, for we do not know where amendments will lead us to or what changes they may effect in the whole legislation "? I am surprised to think that this House of Representatives is incapacitated from considering fairly and calmly and deliberately any measure and attempting to effectuate any amendment that might be thought proper and wise to incorporate in it. Mr. CARLIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania yield to the gentleman from Virginia? Mr. GRAHAM of Pennsylvania. With pleasure. Mr. CARLIN. I just wanted to interrupt the gentleman to advise him that there has been no caucus, so far as this bill is concerned, or on either of the bills now included in the rule. Mr. GRAHAM of Pennsylvania. The distinction may be real, and I do not question the veracity of the gentleman from Virginia when he makes his statement; not for a moment. But my understanding of the situation is that there was a caucus which decided upon a program. I do not mean that it went so far as to determine everything in connection with these bills, but there was a policy adopted, and that policy is being pushed through this House without any change. You could not amend the trade-commission bill, no matter what the reason might be that lay at the root of your amendment. Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GRAHAM of Pennsylvania. And I fear you can not amend this bill for the same reason, although I am led to hope, from the language of my colleague on the committee, the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. FLOYD], that perhaps with respect to this bill, fraught as it is with so many things of vital interest to the business community and the citizens of the country, there may be opportunity given to amend some of these provisions; and it is with the hope that that may be done that I take the time and try the patience of the House to speak at all upon the measure, for if I had not that glimmer of hope I would remain silent, having expressed my views, so far as I am able to do so, in the minority report which is now before the Members. Mr. BARTLETT. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. GRAHAM of Pennsylvania. Certainly. Mr. BARTLETT. I will say to the gentleman that if he is laboring under the idea that there is any caucus action binding the Democratic Members to vote for this particular bill or to vote against all amendments, he is laboring under a mistaken idea; because there are some of us who intend to vote for some amendments that are to be proposed to this bill; that is, if they meet our judgment. [Applause.] Mr. GRAHAM of Pennsylvania. That is a confirmation of the hope that is within me, and I am glad to have it confirmed from such a distinguished authority. Mr. BARTLETT. I want to state to the gentleman that I am as loyal to the action of my party as any man in the House, and I do not understand that we are bound by anything except to vote to consider this bill as it is being considered and as it will be considered for amendment. Mr. GRAHAM of Pennsylvania. For this information I am grateful, and I appreciate the fact that the gentlemen upon the other side are now free to vote for any amendment that may be offered to this measure; and there are many parts of it that require amendment before it shall be passed by this House. I hope to see this information fructify and be illustrated by the votes which will speak louder than protestations of freedom when the time comes to express yourselves by your votes. What is the object of this present legislation? We are told in the report of the committee that it is to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other purposes. If it were limited to those things which have been well considered by the courts and are now understood by the business world, then the measure might commend itself to our judgment and our approval. But there are new standards set up in this measure that are unknown to the antitrust laws of the United States which will require new interpretations at the hands of our courts and will plunge business into a condition of uncertainty and doubt for probably 25 years more. The majority report contains the following quotation-I presume it is taken from the address of his excellency, the President, to this Congress: Additional articles in our constitution of peace, the peace which is honor and freedom and prosperity. These provisions, expressed in this proposed bill, are thus denominated by the majority of our committee: Additional articles in our constitution of peace. I would that they were, for then they could be voted for without hesitation or objection. I would that the very thought which seemed to dominate the message of the President was really true, that he recognized that big business, as it is called, had seen the handwriting upon the wall, that it had taken note of the power of the Government to control our industries, and that it had bowed its head before the authority of statutes and of courts. This was the message and proclamation of peace in which the President said: We now understand each other, and will henceforth go forward, aiding to bring about the finest condition of prosperity of which the country is capable. Does this measure which is now under consideration illustrate any such purpose? We are told that this bill is not designed to hinder or destroy business, but to help it. When you examine the provisions of the bill separately and study their application to business, can you honestly reach such a conclusion as that? It were more true to say that this bill is designed to harass and annoy small business, small corporations, and invade the freedom of business to an extent hitherto unparalleled in the history of legislation in this country. No one questions the importance of this subject. No one can but feel that this is really a measure that ought to have our best and most serious thought. This whole subject of the regulation of monopoly, regulation of interstate trade, or, as the Constitution puts it, regulation of commerce, is now perhaps the most important subject and topic that may engage our attention. I wish to read the words of a distinguished lawyer and statesman, and one who, while he was on the bench, exemplified that he was a most learned and competent judge. I quote from the recent article of ex-President Taft: The Federal antitrust law is one of the most important statutes ever passed in this country. It was a step taken by Congress to meet what the public had found to be a growing and intolerable evil in combinations between many who had capital employed in a branch of trade, industry, or transportation, to obtain control of it, regulate prices, and make unlimited profit. Whether Congress intended it or not I commend that portion of his remarks to the consideration of every Member of this House in connection with the question whether or not labor organizations should be exempted from the operation of this statute. There can be no doubt that the language of the statute on its face, by natural interpretation, must be applied as it stands to labor organizations and every other organization which by its combination may restrain trade or tend to create a monopoly. Whether Congress intended it or not He says it used language that necessarily forbade the combinations of laborers to restrain and obstruct interstate trade. The statute therefore qualified three important phases of what we Include in the general term "individual liberty "-the right of property, freedom to contract, and freedom of labor. In this law Congress used general expressions--" restraint of trade," "monopoly," "combinations," and "conspiracy." |