(The bill referred to is as follows:)

[S. 3104, Sixty-first Congress, first session.]

A BILL To create a nonpartisan Revenue and Industrial Commission. Whereas the history of this Government for many years past shows that great disturbances and business depression have been caused by tariff agitation, industrial plants shut down, developments stopped, and millions of laborers thrown out of employment, and more money lost to the people in consequence of partisan tariff contention than has been received by the Government in import duties: Now, therefore, to prevent the recurrence of such distress, loss, and disturbance in public and private business

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be created a permanent nonpartisan United States Revenue and Industrial Commission.

SEC. 2. That this commission shall be composed of nine members, not more than five of whom shall be members of one political party, four of whom shall be appointed by the President of the United States, two shall be appointed by the President of the Senate, two by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and one by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, all to be confirmed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States.

SEC. 3. That the term of office of the said commissioners shall be for four years, and members may be eligible to reappointment. Any commissioner may be removed by the President of the United States for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.

SEC. 4. That the duty of the commission shall be to investigate tariff duties and other means of raising necessary revenues for the support of the United States Government and the effect of the same upon the welfare and industries of the people of the United States. The commission shall investigate the cost of producing articles subject to tariff duties in the United States and foreign countries, including wages and hours of labor and conditions of living, cost of raw materials, domestic and foreign, capital employed, condition of markets, and to examine into questions concerning agricultural, mining, manufacturing, transportation, and other industries and commercial interests of the United States, in order to furnish Congress the fullest possible knowledge of the facts as a basis for tariff and other revenue legislation. The commission shall recommend such tariff and other revenue legislation and such changes in existing tariff and revenue laws as it may deem practical and wise.

SEC. 5. That the commission shall have authority to make investigation as to existing industrial and commercial conditions, and to give hearings to those engaged in the various industries, employments, and businesses of the country, and to recommend needed legislation to correct evils which may exist in our commerce and industries, for the benefit of the laborer, the producer, and the consumer, so as to best conserve the public interests and secure economic liberty to the whole people.

SEC. 6. That the salary of members of the commission shall be seven thousand five hundred dollars per year and necessary traveling expenses. Each commissioner shall be allowed a private secretary, at a salary of one thousand five hundred dollars per year.

SEC. 7. That the commission shall have power to subpoena witnesses, administer oaths or affirmations, take testimony, compel the attendance of persons and the production of books or papers, and the nearest courts of the United States shall enforce its requirements in this respect. Witnesses shall be paid the same fees and traveling expenses as other Government witnesses. If necessary the commission may appoint a subcommission or commissions of its own members to make investigations in any part of the United States or in foreign countries, and it shall be allowed necessary expenses for the same, provided a majority of the commission shall not be absent from the United States at one time. Any member of the commission or the secretary may administer oaths and affirmations and sign notices. The commission may make requisite rules to govern the orderly regulation of proceedings before it, including the form of notices and service thereof.

SEC. 8. That the commission shall have authority to call upon the various executive departments of the Government for facts or information in the possession of said departments which may be necessary for the proper performance

of its duties; and said executive departments, bureaus, or commissions shall furnish such information when not inconsistent with the public interest.

SEC. 9. That the commission shall make an annual report to Congress on the first Monday in December of each year, and shall make such special reports as may be called for by Congress from time to time.

SEC. 10. That there shall be a chairman, vice-chairman, and secretary of the commission, to be elected by a majority vote of the commission, and the commission shall have authority to employ the necessary clerical force for the proper conduct of its business. A majority of the commission shall constitute a quorum to do business. The commission may also employ necessary experts and legal assistants and fix their salary or compensation. The commission may rent suitable quarters for its principal office and for the conduct of its business in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, but whenever the convenience of the public or the commissioners may be promoted or delay or expense prevented thereby, the commission may hold its sessions in any part of the United States. The expenses of the commission, outside of the salaries of the members, shall not exceed the sum of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars per year. The salaries and necessary expenses of the commission, including rent, stationery, and printing, shall be paid out of any moneys in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated.

SEC. 11. That in case of any vacancy in this commission caused by death, resignation, or otherwise, the vacancy shall be filled by the same authority which appointed the previous incumbent.

SEC. 12. That this act shall take effect ninety days after its passage.

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, that concludes what I have to say, and what I desired to submit to the committee in the matter of definite proposals already formulated as legislation. I have noticed since I was on the stand yesterday that a very eminent citizen of the United States, a former President, has committed himself to the idea that Congress should enter into the question of fixing prices of commodities, but I believe that the experience which we had when the President and the Secretary of State, acting in conjunction with the directors of the Steel Trust, undertook to fix the price of Tennessee Coal & Iron, was not so successful and so satisfactory to the country that a continuation of that policy would be approved, or would be considered a safe one for the country to embark in, especially if the power to fix those prices were delegated to subordinate executive officials on the one side acting in conjunction with the great heads of the industrial corporations on the other. The tendency of the great corporations to dominate the conferences in fixing the prices would be too great; the risk of those conferences would be too great for us to undertake with safety, and, as I have said, I believe it would be entirely wrong.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cummins, you may interrogate.

Senator CUMMINS. I take it that you are in sympathy with the purposes and objects of the antitrust law?

Mr. MARTIN. I am.

Senator CUMMINS. Were you connected with the Antitrust League at the time the antitrust law was enacted?

Mr. MARTIN. No; the Antitrust League was organized in its present form since the antitrust law was enacted.

Senator CUMMINS. I understood you to say that your association, or some one that preceded it, had very much to do with the passage of this statute?

Mr. MARTIN. I think my language was that the men who were members of our association were all actively in favor of the enactment of that law.

Senator CUMMINS. The only materiality of the inquiry is to find out whether you were familiar at that time with the circumstances under which it was passed, and the general object sought to be obtained by its adoption.

Mr. MARTIN. Somewhat, Senator. It is 21 years ago, and I do not know that my recollection is perfect as to many of the details, but I have somewhat of a recollection of the situation.

Senator CUMMINS. You have suggested two amendments to the interstate-commerce law, really-one creating a Department of Transportation and the other directed against the community of those interested in the management of railways, and great corporations interested in production. Those are the only amendments that you have suggested, are they not? I want to get that clear in my

mind.

Mr. MARTIN. They are the only ones I have suggested in the form of bills already prepared. I suggested another bill which, while directly amending the interstate-commerce law, would have a very wide indirect effect upon it.

Senator CUMMINS. The amendments that you have brought to our attention are all amendments to the interstate-commerce law?

Mr. MARTIN. In effect they would be, although they are separate bills.

Senator CUMMINS. Well, any legislation that adds to or modifies an existing statute on the subject, I reckon as an amendment. But you, as I understand your statement, are opposed to any modification, addition, or change in the antitrust law?

Mr. MARTIN. At this time.

Senator CUMMINS. Why at this time?

Mr. MARTIN. Because up to this time the antitrust law of 1890 has never had a fair trial or enforcement.

Senator CUMMINS. It has had as fair a trial as the interstatecommerce law, which was passed three years before, has it not? Mr. MARTIN. No, sir.

Senator CUMMINS. In what respect has it failed in its trial?

Mr. MARTIN. For the reason that nearly every man in those 21 years who has occupied the position of Attorney General of the United States has been entirely out of sympathy with the purposes and objects of the law, and has, to my knowledge, refrained at times and refused to enforce the law when evidence was brought to his attention of violations of the gravest character.

Senator CUMMINS. Your charge is that the executive departments of the Government have betrayed the country in their refusal to execute the law? That is your charge?

Mr. MARTIN. That is strong language, Senator Cummins, but I will stand for it. It conveys my idea, I think, exactly.

Senator CUMMINS. We must deal in plain language to understand each other.

Mr. MARTIN. I hesitated myself to use the word betrayed, but, since the Senator has incorporated it, I will accept it as being correct. Senator CUMMINS. Do you know whether that refusal or neglect upon the part of the executive department during many years to enforce the laws was because of its difference of opinion with respect to what constitutes restraint of trade and commerce or whether it was because the official consciously betrayed his trust?

Mr. MARTIN. In some instances I think the latter beyond any doubt, and proper inquiry by Congress will, I think, develop and prove that fact.

Senator CUMMINS. Well, there has been a great deal of activity in recent years in the enforcement of the law, has there not?

Mr. MARTIN. We are pleased to note that there has been.

Senator CUMMINS. You understand that the chief purpose, if not the only purpose, of the antitrust laws is to preserve competition in business, do you not?

Mr. MARTIN. I think that would be a correct statement, although hardly wide enough to cover the whole facts of the case.

Senator CUMMINS. I am using competition in its broadest sense. Mr. MARTIN. Taking it in its broadest sense, I accept it.

Senator CUMMINS. I employed it in that way just now. During the 21 years that the antitrust law has been an enactment of the United States more has been accomplished in the way of destroying competition over the entire country than before that time, has there not?

Mr. MARTIN. And much more would have been done had the antitrust law not been in existence.

Senator CUMMINS. I am simply asking you if it is not openly known by everybody that there has been more done in the way of destroying competition in the last 21 years than ever before in the history of the United States?

Mr. MARTIN. In the aggregate, and roughly, that is true. There are some modifications that I would like to make to that, however, Senator.

Senator CUMMINS. You attribute

Senator NEWLANDS. He says that there are some modifications that he desires to make.

Senator CUMMINS. Very well.

Mr. MARTIN. As, for instance, that due to the existence of the antitrust law and the threat of its enforcement. The growth of the independent refiners of oil has been quite substantial, rising at the time the Industrial Commission was formed, I think, in 1897 or 1898, from only about 3 per cent to something over 20 per cent. There was a growth of some competition, which I think was largely due to the threat or the fear of the enforcement of the antitrust law against that combination. I believe that combination was advised by their counsel that they were in danger if the law should ever be enforced against them, and I think the decision of the Supreme Court has demonstrated that fact.

Senator CUMMINS. I did not mean to suggest that all competition in the United States has been destroyed, because I am sure that it has not been in many of the fields of industry and business. But it is still true that notwithstanding the existence of the antitrust law. competition has been throttled and strangled during the last 21 years so that now there is less of it than there was then.

Mr. MARTIN. In the aggregate, I should say yes.

Senator CUMMINS. Now you attribute that fact, or you explain that fact, by the suggestion that the law has not been enforced as it should have been enforced.

Mr. MARTIN. Exactly.

Senator CUMMINS. Do you think that if the law had been enforced vigorously and properly that we would have been able to preserve competition in our business?

Mr. MARTIN. I do.

Senator CUMMINS. Do you rely on the criminal or the civil remedies of the statute chiefly in reaching that conclusion?

Mr. MARTIN. Both are substantially equal in effect if thoroughly enforced.

Senator CUMMINS. The criminal remedies have not hitherto been very deterrent, have they?

Mr. MARTIN. They have been but partially invoked.

Senator CUMMINS. That is, you say the judges have been rather slow to impose penalties other than fines for the violation of the law. Mr. MARTIN. They have not been as slow as the Department of Justice has been in asking for the imposition of those penalties.

Senator CUMMINS. There may have been some prosecutions, however, and some convictions, but so far as I remember, no imprison

ments.

Mr. MARTIN. I think the turpentine men were sentenced to impris

onment.

Senator CUMMINS. Yes, some of those little chaps down in Florida. Mr. MARTIN. If the Senator will pardon me, I would like to say just a word on that phase of the matter.

Senator CUMMINS. I am perfectly willing. Do not feel yourself limited.

Mr. MARTIN. I think that I ought to say this in justice to the Attorneys General who have held office during the existence of this law. Perhaps my statement of yesterday might have seemed unduly severe against them. It is not only the Attorneys General who are to be blamed for the nonenforcement of the law, but as in the case of the Tennessee Coal & Iron absorption, the Oklahoma case, when the Attorney General was asked to prosecute that case, the Attorney General was forbidden by his chief to act. And in the case of the courts, they are blamable to some extent for the nonenforcement of the law. I think no Senator on this committee would excuse the action of Judge Archbald, of Pennsylvania, transferring for some unknown reason to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, to deal with a trust case. The men were so guilty that when they were charged they did not dare to go before the jury, and did not even make a plea of not guilty. They practically made a confession of guilt in their plea, and yet the judge, knowing that they were guilty of the grossest kind of violation, let them off with a puny fine of $1,000. I have all due respect for the courts of the United States, but I believe that a judge who does such a thing as that is a proper subject for inquiry under the supervisory power of Congress.

Senator CUMMINS. That brings us to the point that I had in mind. When you find a consistent course of that sort pursued by a great many people, officials in high stations and in low stations, over a long period of time, there are but two conclusions that can be reached, as it seems to me. One is that there is something essentially weak in the law that needs strengthening, the other is that the officers of the United States over a period of 20 years have been a band of rascals,