There must be some method to develop, if possible, some good faith and cooperative measures, if agreed to by businessmen. First of all, if your penalties are severe that will make other people feel they should not violate the law.

Mr. PATMAN. An assured.

Mr. HALFPENNY. An assured penalty, and then you would have to put some teeth in it. Then there must be developed some way that businessmen can cooperate with the Government on some basis. We do have under existing law some possibility of that. But I am a lawyer advising trade associations, and it is very difficult to give them a guiding post as to what they can or cannot do.

Along that line I call the attention of the committee to the old Sugar case (297 U. S. 553–598) in which Chief Justice Hughes made this statement:

Voluntary action to end abuses and to foster fair competitive opportunities in the public interest may be more effective than legal processes, and cooperative endeavors may appropriately have wider objectives than merely the removal of evils which are infractions of law.

I realize that there is danger in that. The antitrust law should be vigorously enforced when there are any violations and there should be some method to utilize some kind of industrial volunteer corrective processes to provide at least greater clarity to businessmen.

Mr. PATMAN. Did you not suggest that a while ago when you spoke about the establishment of an antitrust court?

Mr. HALFPENNY. Yes.

Mr. PATMAN. Then you would not have to have voluntary agreement which possibly could lead into collusion and conspiracy.

Mr. HALFPENNY. Yes. That is the danger of it. Even now the Federal Trade Commission, if it would in its opinion in any important formal procedure set forth the construction of the law and a further explanatory statement of the legal issues involved, it would be very helpful. It is difficult now for businessmen in many instances to understand the facts of the opinion. Something should be developed wherein the Commission would feel they would have authority to do something of that nature.

The fourth thing I would like to recommend is that the Congress should make available to the Commission increased funds and personnel and enlarge their functions. The amount that we have been giving for this work has been very niggardly. This is the most important type of work that can be done for the protection of the future of this country. For some reason it seems we do not make available funds for this type of work. If someone in China has a stomach ache, we will appropriate a great deal of money for them; but something that is very important to every American, and that is my feeling about this type of work, we are very miserly in our funds.

The fifth thing I would mention is this: I find in going throughout the country in trade-association work that many witnesses are fearful of appearing. Where they have appeared, even in cases that havebeen brought before you today, I know of instances where there has been retaliation against two witnesses who have testified. I do not mean where there has been physical violence, but something more subtle. That is, economic retaliation. I think there should be some type of Federal statute for the protection of witnesses from retaliation.

Mr. BALLINGER. With severe penalty?

Mr. HALFPENNY. That is right. Mr. Ballinger, you find it very difficult to have witnesses appear even at those hearings you are going to have. They are reluctant to name names and to name things because they are fearful of economic retaliation.

Mr. BALLINGER. I may say, Mr. Chairman, I have received a good many letters from people who say:

I should have the courage to come forward and state what is happening to me, but if I do so I would be retaliated against and I would lose my business. I am sorry. I wish I could help, but I cannot.

Mr. HALFPENNY. I realize it is very easy this morning to recommend things and I know it is another thing to get them through the divergent ideas that much necessarily be involved in our type of government. But that, roughly, is my thinking on some things that might be done. There have been numerous meetings as to specific detailed changes of the law itself.

Mr. PATMAN. Most of our best laws, of course, originated or are initiated by reason of an idea suggested by someone. These suggestions will certainly be given consideration. The hearings of this committee will be printed and not only be sent to the members of this committee but will be available to all Members of the House and Senate. You would be surprised to know how many people actually read and study the testimony that is presented before this committee. To give you an idea how a law is born-from just a crude suggestion-a friend of mine down in my district wrote me a postal card. This was when John Dillinger was running at large and they could not catch him. He said on this postal card, "Why do you not offer a reward from him? His confederates will turn him in."

I presented that to Homer Cummings, then Attorney General, who said "That is a good idea. Let us get up a bill on it." So I got up a bill that after any person who is designated as a public enemy by the Attorney General is so designated a reward up to $50,000 may be offered for his apprehension, dead or alive.

We took the bill over to Mr. Roosevelt. We thought it was very important and we wanted the President to get behind it. He took his pencil and struck out the words "dead or alive" and said "That is too gruesome. The other part is all right."

That bill was put through in 2 or 3 weeks. A reward was offered for Dillinger. He was apprehended and also Karpis very soon after that was apprehended under the same law. Pretty Boy Floyd was also apprehended under that law. You do not hear any more about these public enemies-that law, which is a good law, came from an idea suggested by a friend of mine who used to be a foreman of a grand jury down in Bowie County, Tex.-We have a lot of laws that came about in that way. You would be surprised to know that the Robinson-Patman law originated in the same way.

Mr. HALFPENNY. That is very interesting.

Mr. PATMAN. We thank you.

Mr. HALFPENNY. We appreciate being here. We will have witnesses appearing from the National Standard Parts Association throughout the country so that you will see the things that we have discussed here today are widespread. We will be happy to cooperate in any manner

we can.

STATEMENT OF R. C. DEAN ON BEHALF OF MONTANA STATE FOOD DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION

Mr. BALLINGER. Give your full name for the record.

Mr. DEAN. R. C. Dean, Helena, Mont., secretary of Montana State Food Distributors Association.

Mr. BALLINGER. There are four representatives of your industry here; is that true?

Mr. DEAN. Yes; several of them are here.

Mr. BALLINGER. They came from out of town?

Mr. DEAN. NO; they are all local people.

Mr. BALLINGER. They are all local people here?

Mr. DEAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALLINGER. Do any of them wish to appear before the com

mittee?

Mr. DEAN. Yes, they do.

Mr. BALLINGER. Why do you not bring them around?

Mr. PATMAN. Yes; bring them forward.

Mr. DEAN. May I make a statement?

Mr. PATMAN. Yes.

Mr. BALLINGER. The first gentleman here, will you identify yourself for the record?

Mr. BISHOP. Garfield J. Bishop.
Mr. BALLINGER. Your business?
Mr. BISHOP. Groceries and meats
Mr. BALLINGER. The next gentleman.

and general merchandise.

Mr. BECKY. John Becky, groceries and meat.
Mr. BALLINGER. Identify yourself.

Mr. ROBERTS. Wayne Roberts, groceries and meats.
Mr. BALLINGER. The next gentleman.

Mr. THOMAS. Guy Thomas, groceries and meats.

Mr. BALLINGER. The next gentleman.

Mr. RICHARDS. William Richards, groceries.
Mr. BALLINGER. The next gentleman.

Mr. HARRING. Joe Harring, groceries and meats.
Mr. BALLINGER. The next gentleman.

Mr. FUHR. My name is Fuhr; groceries and meats.
Mr. BALLINGER. The next gentleman.

Mr. HAILLEGUG. R. G. Haillegug.

Mr. DEAN. Mr. Chairman, as a statement of policy of the Food Association of the State of Montana, representing 445 retail merchants handling groceries and meats, out of 1,659 so-called grocery and meat dealers, it is our statement of policy, and it is a fact that we have no intrastate trouble.

We in Montana here are very fortunate in having an Unfair Practices Act enforced by the State.

The counsel for that Montana commission is here and it will be up to him to talk about this law. We are not going into the law. I will let him explain the law and its functions.

As I stated, we have no complaint, either large or small, on intrastate business. We are well able and capable of taking care of ourselves from within.

Several of these gentlemen here with us have troubles that affect them from an interstate standpoint where our law does not touch. They do not have the facts, but they know these things.

There is nothing that we can prove about it, yet it is something that is common knowledge.

Mr. BALLINGER. May I ask you at that point, does your association have the means of ever finding this out?

Mr. DEAN. No, we do not, due to the Federal laws which prohibit us from trying to find out.

We are very reluctant to hold conferences or to get several people together. In fact, I advise my men never to get together and talk about the Unfair Practice Act. We see where the Department of Justice is going to investigate violations of the antitrust law and price fixing. So I recommended to my members never even among themselves to talk about the Unfair Practice Act or the practices of other people.

Mr. BALLINGER. You mean, get together and talk about it for the purpose of price fixing.

You have heard the testimony of officials of the National Standard Parts Association that go to work and gather facts on problems that affect them on interstate commerce.

Mr. DEAN. That is true, but the statute provides for fines of from $10,000 to $20,000 on price fixing.

I believe if it were legal to hold conferences, that would be the solution.

Perhaps we need additional laws.

Mr. PATMAN. Anything else?

Mr. DEAN. That is the statement of policy for the record.

Mr. Bishop can go ahead from here. Do you have anything?

Mr. BISHOP. Well, I think there are three main difficulties out of a good many difficulties.

One thing in particular is these loss leaders, although we have a Fair Trade Practices Act in this State It is occurring all the time nevertheless.

For example, in the daily newspapers you will see pork advertised for 55 cents which costs us around 71 cents.

Mr. PATMAN. Are your local merchants advertising that?

Mr. DEAN. Local merchants. You will find hams advertised at 55 cents.

Mr. PATMAN. Are they locally owned and operated?

Mr. BISHOP. No, not necessarily. They are chain outfits.

Mr. PATMAN. You mean national chains?

Mr. BISHOP. National chains and big home-owned independent markets.

You will find hams advertised for 55 cents which cost 61 cents and 62 cents.

There is misrepresentation there in advertising because I understand that these hams are very large hams, although in the advertisement there is nothing said about them being large.

Then another thing is in volume buying. A good many manufacturers or larger firms get a discount that would be impossible for the smaller merchant to take advantage of.

We will take, for example, Morton Salt-I think it is Morton Salt. You gentlemen know about that.

Mr. BALLINGER. The Supreme Court has passed on that case.
Mr. BISHOP. There are a good many more I could think of.

I don't know whether they are facts or not, but I get those through the national magazines that are published throughout the country. The gentlemen who preceded we merchants, I think, have covered the case entirely and thoroughly.

There is one other thing: The Government bureaus are so slow in acting. You can present something to them and you are lucky if you get a final solution in 5 or 6 years.

That is about the only thing I care to say.

Mr. BALLINGER. What about the next witness?

Mr. BECKY. I think he has covered it adequately.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Bishop has covered our difficulty. The fault comes from the Government. I think it is very lax, and, as has been mentioned here before, it takes from 5 to 10 years before we can get action.

I believe everything has been covered very thoroughly.

Mr. BALLINGER. What about you?

Mr. THOMAS. The same.

Mr. BALLINGER. What about you?

Mr. RICHARDS. I think Mr. Bishop has covered it adequately.

STATEMENT BY LIEF ERICKSON ON BEHALF OF VARIOUS POLE OPERATORS IN THE STATE OF MONTANA

Mr. ERICKSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call forward here the people I represent today.

I am going to present two matters, representing two different

groups:

The first group is the pole operators of the State of Montana. I would like to have those gentlemen come forward.

Mr. Curtis is here, Mr. Oaas, Mr. Dury, Mr. Carlisle, and Mr. Robert Curtis.

Mr. PATMAN. Have you discussed with counsel for the committee the manner and method of testifying?

Mr. ERICKSON. No; I have not,

What I had intended to do here, if it meets with your approval, is to make a very short introductory statement, then call on Mr. Curtis who would know the business. He can make it much more briefly. Mr. PATMAN. Along the lines of taking a few minutes each? Mr. ERICKSON. Yes.

I have had experience before committees.

Mr. PATMAN. You may proceed.

Mr. ERICKSON. Let me say at the outset I feel that it is properly appropriate that your committee come to Montana to start this series of hearings, for the reason that in Montana we have no large business. We have one or two large companies, and with the exception of those, everyone in business here is on a very small scale. Our manufacturing is on a small scale, and everything we do.

Any attempt by Congress or by anyone else to alleviate the situation of the small-business man here is of great importance to us.

Then the second thing I would like to say is that in modern times the Government has gotten so big and so away from the people that