visions to be limited to the books, records, documents, etc., of corporations. Incidental to this power the question will naturally arise in many instances as to whether or not certain papers and documents are the property of the corporation or of the individual officer or agent thereof. But it seems clear that records and documents which are the property of individuals are not subject to the powers of the Commission. The constitutional power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce may be exercised to the same extent over persons as over corporations, subject to the limitations contained in the fourth amendment concerning searches and seizures and the fifth amendment concerning self-incrimination. However, it seems reasonably clear from a consideration of the entire law that Congress intended to confine the Commission's inquisitorial powers to corporations only.

SUITS FOR DAMAGES OR FOR INJUNCTION UNDER THESE LAWS.

There is nothing in the Trade Commission law in regard to suits for damages by private persons. This does not mean, however, that a person injured by violation of the rule against unfair methods of competition is necessarily deprived of the right to recover damages resulting therefrom. The Supreme Court must determine the legal question involved. Whether the Court will hold that the Trade Commission must act primarily as to the matters and things within its jurisdiction, as it has held the Interstate Commerce Commission must act with reference to carriers,11 is doubtful.

Section 4 of the Clayton law gives any person in

14.-Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. vs. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426; Interstate Commerce Commission vs. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 215 U. S. 452.

jured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the Anti-trust laws the right to sue therefor in any District Court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides, is found or has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and provides that the person suing shall recover threefold damages, costs of suit and a reasonable attorney's fee. This provision applies to the Clayton law a similar measure of damage to that embodied in section 7 of the Sherman law. Persons, therefore, injured by price discrimination, tying contracts, interlocking directors or stock ownership may recover threefold the damages occasioned thereby. The Courts likewise must decide as to whether or not such action will lie before the violation complained of has been passed upon by the Trade Commission.

Section 5 of the Clayton law provides that in any suit brought under the Anti-trust laws by any private person against one who has been a defendant in a criminal or equity proceeding by the United States to enforce the Anti-trust laws, the decree or judgment shall be prima facie evidence against such defendant to the extent that it would operate as an estoppel as between the parties thereto. In other words, if one has been found guilty in a government suit of violating the Anti-trust laws, the judgment or decree would be presumptive evidence of the fact of violation. The plaintiff in an action for damages against such person would still have to show injury occasioned by the wrongful act.

The second paragraph of the section provides that the statute of limitations applicable to private rights of action under the Anti-trust laws shall not run as to any act complained of in a suit by the government under such laws, during the pendency of such suit.

That is, the time consumed in the government suit is added to the regular period of three years in determining the time in which a suit may be brought for the recovery of damages.

Section 16 of the Clayton law gives any person, firm or corporation the right to sue for injunctive relief against threatened loss or damage by violation of the Anti-trust laws, including sections 2, 3, 7 and 8 of the Clayton law, under the same conditions as injunctive relief in other matters is provided for in courts of equity. Provision is made for temporary injunction upon the filing of proper bond. This section was passed in view of certain decisions construing the Sherman law to the effect that the Attorney General alone could bring suits in equity to restrain violations thereof.15

The discussion as to the proviso preventing suits for injunction against common carriers is found under the title "Common Carriers."

Suits for injunctions based upon violations of the Sherman and Wilson laws may now be instituted by private persons or corporations and the benefit of the decree in a government suit likewise accrues to private litigants.

CRIMINAL PROVISIONS OF THE TWO LAWS.

1. Trade Commission Law.

Unfair methods of competition which are declared unlawful are not made criminal. There is no penalty imposed for a failure to obey an order of the Commission to cease and desist from using an unfair method of competition. Neglect or refusal to attend and testify or answer any lawful inquiry or produce

15.-National Fireproofing Company vs. Mason Builders' Association, 169 Fed. 259, and cases cited.

documentary evidence is made an offense punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both. Wilfully making any false report that the Commission may require is made an offense punishable by fine, imprisonment for not more than three years, or both. This offense applies only to corporate representatives, because the Commission has power to order reports from corporations only. Wilfully making or causing to be made any false entry in any account, record or memorandum of a corporation, or wilfully failing to make, or causing to be made, full, true or correct entries in such accounts of all facts appertaining to the business of such corporation, or wilfully removing out of the jurisdiction of the United States, or wilfully mutilating, altering or falsifying any documentary evidence of such corporation, or wilfully refusing to submit to the Commission for inspection and copying any such documentary evidence, is made an offense punishable in the same way.

An officer or employee of the Commission who makes public information without authority shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

2. Clayton Law.

Violations of the provisions of the Clayton law against price discrimination, tying contracts, stock ownership and interlocking, are not made criminal offenses. No penalty is imposed for failure to obey an order of the Commission or Board "to cease and desist from such violations and divest itself of the stock held or rid itself of the directors chosen."

22

Embezzlement by a president, director, officer or manager of any common carrier engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, whether or not subject to the Acts to Regulate Commerce, is made a felony. But a judgment of conviction or acquittal on the

merits under the laws of any State bars any prosecution under the Clayton law for the same act.

Any common carrier violating the provisions regulating its relations with supply, construction or financial concerns, and every director, agent, manager, or officer of such common carrier who knowingly voted for or directed the violation, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and subjected to fine or imprisonment, or both. This language apparently applies to persons who are common carriers as well as to corporations. The law expressly imposes these penal provisions upon any person therein described who shall directly or indirectly do or attempt to do anything to prevent any bidding, or to prevent free and fair competition among bidders or those desiring to bid, for contracts with common carriers, in interlocking cases where section 10 of the law regulates such bidding.

Whenever a corporation shall violate any of the penal provisions of the Anti-trust laws such violation shall be deemed to be that of the individual directors, officers or agents of such corporations who shall have authorized or done any of the acts constituting in whole or in part such violation. And such violation shall be deemed a misdemeanor punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both.

It is to be especially noted that there are no criminal penalties imposed against persons, partnerships, corporations or their officers, agents, or directors for using unfair methods of competition, or for price discrimination, tying contracts, stock ownership or interlocking in violation of either of these two laws.