appropriation is almost entirely allocated. There is a small balance now remaining, which I will supply to the committee, but the personnel recommendations now ready, and to be made will shortly exhaust that balance, so that I think in the very near future the Division will have no surplus whatsoever. WORK LOAD OF DIVISION The current staff of the Antitrust Division is 196 lawyers. The enforcement activities of the Division are in direct proportion to the number of lawyers employed by the Division. Of the 196 lawyers, 179 are assigned to antitrust matters. Of the remainder, 9 lawyers are assigned to the rate-reparation proceedings, and 8 lawyers are assigned to other matters which again are not antitrust statutes. We have now pending a work load which consists of 133 pending court cases, 158 major investigations, a steady stream of small business. matters, and the review of mergers, all of which are now on the docket. I am sure the committee is familiar with the requirements of manpower for any single major antitrust case. As an illustration, the investment banking case, which we filed recently in New York, took the full time of some eight men for more than 2 years in its preparation. The case will require at least that staff, if not a larger staff, for the purpose of trial. On the basis of our pending court cases-that is, 133 cases in the courts today-and the 158 major investigations now pending, we have less than 1 man per major case or investigation. Experience, I think, in the Government involving antitrust enforcement, and outside the Government, indicates that the average per antitrust case in terms of manpower is about five lawyers. I think the problem of handling, therefore, the cases now pending in court and the investigations now under way requires a substantial increase, the full increase we have requested, if we are going to make any appreciable dent in the job. Our hope is that with the full increase we have requested we can add to the staff of the Division, as we figure it, 131 new lawyers. The experience of the Division since the beginning of this fiscal year has been that we have filed an average of one major antitrust case every 2 weeks. Work now in progress, cases shortly to be filed which are major in nature, will continue at or about that rate and will add to the already heavy burden of pending court litigation that faces us. The trial of the cases now in court, putting aside all major investigations, would require all of the present antitrust personnel with some additions, and obviously the cases to result from the 158 major investigations will require additional personnel to handle them. INVESTIGATIONS IN PROGRESS I think, gentlemen, that that closes my general statement. I would like to point out to you that not only have we been filing cases of a major nature frequently, and I think after careful preparation in each instance which required extensive use of manpower, but we have also commenced a very substantial number of important investigations. Those investigations are important not only with respect to the general economic problems of the country, but a number of them relate to violations of the Sherman Act in the fields of food, clothing, and housing where we have very intensive work going on. Last Friday we filed one of the cases growing out of our housing program, a case out in Kansas City, involving members of the Kansas City Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors Association. That case relates to restraints of trade in the electrical contracting field, which we believe had added substantially to the cost of housing based upon electrical contracting services. Others, we think, are very likely to develop from our investigations of the housing field. In Chicago we have a grand jury investigating the meat business which has been going on for some months now, and it has been a full-time job for a number of members of the staff of our Chicago office. Those, I think, are illustrative, with one in the rayon field, of the type of work we are doing in food, clothing, and housing. In New York we have concentrated a grand jury investigation of the rayon industry. That investigation has been going on for some months now, and has been a major project of the New York office of the Division. It is still in progress, and it is too early for us to state at this time whether or not we have cases coming from that investigation, but it is clear that there are some questionable practices which may be in violation of the antitrust laws. Thus I think rayon in New York, a major investigation; meat in Chicago, a major investigation; and our recent electrical contractors case in Kansas City, illustrate the types of cases in each of the three fields which we have been emphasizing in recent months. I would be very happy, Mr. Chairman, to answer any questions you may have. NEED FOR ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT Mr. STEFAN. Thank you, Mr. Sonnett. Do you think the Sherman antitrust law equips you with enough legislation to carry on your work, or do you need additional legislation? Mr. SONNETT. I don't think, Mr. Chairman, that the problem as I see it, the broad problem, is one of additional legislation at this time. I think rather it is one of additional enforcement. There are certain respects in which I think the present law could be clarified. That is, I think the proposals of the Federal Trade Commission to amend section 7 of the Clayton Act would be of material assistance, but in terms of broad economic problems of the country I think the question is rather one of adequate enforcement and not one of a change in the Sherman Act at this time. Mr. STEFAN. Outside of some minor changes, you say you are armed with sufficient legislation under the Sherman Antitrust Act to carry on your activities? Mr. SONNETT. I think, Mr. Chairman, that is so. Certainly I believe that is so, and will believe it until the time comes when the Antitrust Division is adequately staffed and can try adequately and thoroughly to enforce the act as it stands. It may be that at some time in the future, assuming adequate enforcement, some changes will be found necessary, but I don't think we have reached that point yet. Mr. STEFAN. All right, now during the war the Antitrust Division work had to be practically abandoned in order to get some cooperative program here in the United States to win the war. Mr. SONNETT. Certain types of work; yes. Mr. STEFAN. But now we are going right back again. That is all over. Those temporary rules are gone and we are now on a program of enforcing the antitrust law; is that right? Mr. SONNETT. I think that is so, Mr. Chairman, and I think that that will remain so whatever may be the legislative developments in terms of allocation statutes or price-control statutes, which may be adopted. Mr. STEFAN. Along toward the war and through the close of it, this committee, which has been handling the appropriations for a long time, was told to practically forget antitrust law violations in order to win the war, and now after the war we are going right after them again because we must eliminate monopoly and restraints of trade and all that, so we reembark on the program of enforcing antitrust laws. STATEMENT OF WORK LOAD I note in your justification you have 158 antitrust matters under investigation, and in order to save time we will put your work load in the record at this point, that is, pages 153 and 154, and in order to get the record straight we will also put in the record the cases instituted under the Federal antitrust law for the fiscal year July 1, 1946, June 30, 1947, pages 155, 156, 157. That would not be complete, however, without the disposal of criminal cases during the same period of time as shown on pages 158 and 159, which will be placed in the record. I think we ought to put in the record a list of fines imposed under the antitrust laws in order to show what you have been doing. These are shown on pages 160 and 161. (The matter referred to is as follows:) Method of determining pending investigations revised. 1946 and 1947 not comparable to prior years. 7 Won 12. lost 2 (1947) won 0, lost 1 (July 1 to Nov. 21, 1947) of the 6 cases pending before the Supreme Court on Nov. 21, 1947, 1 has been argued and decision is awaited. Cases instituted under Federal antitrust law, for the fiscal year July 1, 1946-June 30, 1947 Cases instituted under Federal antitrust law, for the fiscal year July 1, 1946-June 30, 1947-Continued Title of case U. S. v. Wallace & Tiernan Co. et al.... U. S. v. Wallace & Tiernan Co. Inc., et al.. U. S. v. North Coast Transportation Co. et al. U. S. v. Johnson & Johnson et al.. U. S. v. Magnaflux Corporation. U. S. v. Tarpon Springs Sponge Exchange, Inc.. U. S. v. Bendix Home Appliance, Inc., & Telecoin Corp.... U. S. v. Standard Oil Company of California & Standard U. S. v. National Cash Register Co et al. U. S. v. Phillips Screw Company et al.. U. S. v. General Cable Corporation et al U. S. v. American-La France-Foamite Corp. et al. U. S. v. Columbia Steel Company et al. U. S. v. Grinding Wheel Manufacturers Ass'n.. Do... U. S. v. Armour & Company et al. U. S. v. Richfield Oil Corporation_ U. S. v. Wallace & Tiernan Company, Inc. et al. U. S. v. Cotton Valley Operators Committee_. U. S. v. American Society of Composers, Authors and Pub- Entertainment.. lishers. Civil. Do. Criminal. Civil. Do. Do. Criminal. Do. Civil. Criminal. Civil. |