Organization and Law of the Department of Commerce and Labor

Mr. MANN. Well, I am not as smart as the gentleman from Massachusetts, if he can understand it from hearing it read.

Mr. THAYER. I hope the opportunity will be granted for gentlemen of this House to discuss and analyze this amendment. I think it comes nearer to the bull's-eye than anything that has been presented. I had occasion to vote with the majority of this House for a constitutional amendment in the last Congress which it was never intended should be passed by the coordinate branch at the other end of this building and which I had very grave doubts about our right to pass; but I want to do something while I am a member of this House or help others in doing something that will make public the acts of the trusts, a proposition which all parties agree is needed, and something that will in some measure satisfy the public. This amendment provides for the very thing we have been discussing here for the last four years. The opportunity is now here. Now is the accepted time; now is the day of salvation for those who do not believe in permitting these trusts to go on in the way they have been going.

Mr. SULZER. Mr. Chairman, I desire to say just a few words more. In discussing this amendment after it was offered the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Mann] said it was crude. That is the word I believe he used. Subsequently, in answer to the gentleman of Massachusetts [Mr. Thayer], the gentleman from Illinois said he never read the amendment; that he had not heard it read; that he knew nothing whatever about it. It seems to me, sir, it comes with very bad grace for the gentleman from Illinois to characterize an amendment as crude that he has never read and never heard read. But it is characteristic of the gentleman, and shows how much reliance should be given his speech.

And yet, Mr. Chairman, this amendment has been pending before his committee ever since the 2d day of last May. And further, sir, he was present in the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce when a delegation of the distinguished and representative gentlemen with myself went before his committee and urged a favorable report on my bill, or at least the incorporation of this amendment, being section 5 in my bill, in a bill creating a Department of Commerce. He heard every word of that discussion. He asked questions of the gentlemen on that occasion. That discussion is printed. Any member can get a copy of it. It is a part of the records of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce on this bill.

It is too late for him now to say that he never read, or heard read, the amendment. In my opinion he knows all about it, or he would not now oppose it so tenaciously. But if he says it is crude, let me say to him that it has been submitted to some of the greatest lawyers in all this land-lawyers not employed by the trusts-and to men who have studied this trust question, not in the interests of the trusts, but in the interests of all the people, and they have all approved it. They say it will absolutely establish publicity, and do it in the only logical and legal way.

Again, sir, this amendment has been favorably passed on by the labor organizations, by the American Anti-Trust League, by leading thinkers and political economists, and by the honest folk of the land who are earnestly and honestly and fearlessly opposed to trusts and monopolies. The independent press of the country ask for publicity. In editorial after editorial they favor this amendment. The President asks for publicity. The Democrats ask for publicity and will vote to a man for this amendment. The people of the land, from one end of it to the other, demand publicity. The Republicans-that is, a few Republicans-say they want publicity; they say it, but they are afraid to vote for publicity. [Applause.]

The Republicans say they are going to give the people publicity as to the trusts some time, some way, somehow; but the days are going on. This Congress will adjourn on the 4th of next March. The time, gentlemen, is short, and I undertake to say that if this amendment is not adopted now, if it is not put in this bill and kept there, that there will be no antitrust legislation, no law for publicity passed during this session of Congress. The President, the Attorney-General, and all of the distinguished Republicans, including my friend from Maine [Mr. Littlefield], will keep on talking against the trusts, but they will do nothing against them.

The people will not and can not be deceived much longer in this matter. The record here to-day on this amendment will tell the tale. It will show whether the Republicans or the Democrats are sincere. It will tell the world who is for and who is against publicity-who are the friends of the trusts and who are the enemies of monopoly. An ounce of performance is worth a ton of promise. If gentlemen on the other side are sincerely in favor of what the people want, if they favor publicity, you will give the people this ounce of performance to-day, and in my judgment it will truly establish publicity and go far to do away with trust evils.

With publicity-like a searchlight, exposing to public view every violation of law— the trusts and monopolies would hesitate a long time ere they violated the law; and if the Attorney-General promptly enforced the law against them, violations of law

would soon cease entirely. But the Attorney-General says substantially in his Pittsburg speech that he can not enforce the law against the trusts because he can not get the evidence of violations of law. Make this amendment a law as a part of this bill and the Attorney-General will have no difficulty in getting the facts-the evidence—to successfully prosecute every trust that is violating the law.

The law now on the statute books against trusts is clear and plain, and the highest court in the land has passed on its validity and sustained the constitutionality of its provisions. The antitrust act of 1890 declares that every contract or combination in the nature of a trust in restraint of trade and commerce among the several States and Territories or with foreign nations is a conspiracy, illegal and void, and punishable by fine and imprisonment.

Under this antitrust act it seems to me every trust in the United States can be prosecuted for violation of law, the charter annulled, and the men behind it punished for conspiracy. Every trust by its very nature is in restraint of trade and commerce and in violation of this law.

If you will read the antitrust act of 1890 and the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in the trans-Missouri freight case and the Addyston Pipe case, the conclusion will be irresistible to the logical mind that the fault is not so much with the law as it is with the men who are sworn to enforce the law.

In my opinion-and I say so advisedly-the Department of Justice under the present law can institute and successfully maintain actions against every trust doing business in the United States. The law is clear and plain, and the facts are within the knowledge of all.

Now, adopt this amendment offered by me for publicity regarding the trusts and monopolies, make it a part of this bill, so that it will soon be a law, and the AttorneyGeneral will get all the facts he wants, and official facts that will be evidence sufficient to prosecute and sufficient to win every case against every trust violating the law. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Sulzer].

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes seemed to have it.

Mr. SULZER. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a division.

The committee divided; and there were-ayes 63, noes 88.

Mr. SULZER. I ask for tellers, Mr. Chairman.

Tellers were ordered.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will appoint as tellers the gentleman from New York [Mr. Sulzer] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Mann].

The committee again divided, and the tellers reported-ayes 75, noes 90.

So the amendment was rejected.

That

Mr. SULZER. Mr. Chairman, I desire now to say one thing. All the Republicans voted against this amendment for publicity and all the Democrats voted for it. tells the story and the whole story. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

The Clerk read as follows:

SEC. 6. That there shall be in the Department of Commerce and Labor a bureau to be called the Bureau of Insurance, and a Chief of said Bureau, who shall be appointed by the President, and who shall receive a salary of $1,000 per annum, and such clerical assistants as may from time to time be authorized by law. It shall be the province and duty of said Bureau, under the direction of the Secretary, to exercise such control as may be provided by law over every insurance company, society, or association transacting business in the United States outside of the State, Territory, or District wherein the same is organized, and to foster, promote, and develop the various insurance industries of the United States by gathering, compiling, publishing, and supplying all available and useful information concerning such insurance companies and the business of insurance, and by such other methods and means as may be prescribed by the Secretary or provided by law.

Mr. CORLISS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out section 6, from lines 1 to 17, inclusive, on page 13.

The Clerk read as follows:

Strike out all of section 6, from line 1 to line 17, inclusive.

Mr. CORLISS. Mr. Chairman, when we were considering section 3 the words "insurance business" were stricken out by the committee, it is true, by a close vote, but it seems to me that this section should also go out of the bill. The question has been fully discussed, and the creation of this Bureau is an unnecessary and useless expenditure of public money in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, holding that marine, fire, and life insurance, or any other kind of insurance, is not commerce and that a contract embracing such insurance does not embrace any of the elements of commerce.

Mr. TAYLER, of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, the remark which was just made by my friend from Michigan [Mr. Corliss] would seem to indicate that there was a larger

interest in this subject on the part of those who support this amendment than one would think necessary under the circumstances. However, if the Supreme Court has held that this is not a subject of national legislation, then no harm can be done by the invasion of the State such as alarms so much my friend from New Jersey [Mr. Gardner]. This is a provision for investigating, for compiling all information respecting the subject of insurance. I was surprised that my friends who were so alarmed over here in reference to States rights in this section pertaining to insurance should not have been similarly alarmed when section 5 was under consideration. If it be an outrage upon the rights of the States to "foster, promote, and develop the various insurance industries of the United States by gathering, compiling, and publishing, and supplying all available and useful information concerning such insurance companies," surely it is a greater outrage upon the rights of the States that the same Department should have power to foster, promote, and develop the various manufacturing industries of the United States by doing exactly the same thing that section 6 provides may be done respecting the fostering and developing of the insurance business. I take it that the manufacturing business is just as important as the insurance business; and if the Supreme Court has held that we can not invade by national legislation the domain of insurance, we may be sure that we could no further invade the domain of manufacturing. At least the courts have not gone so far in that respect, and we have all through our States manufactures just as much threatened in the method in which they are carried on as insurance business can be affected by the identical provision respecting insurance which we find in this act. Mr. BARTLETT. Will the gentleman yield to me for a question?

Mr. TAYLER, of Ohio. If I had time I would be glad to yield to the gentleman. Mr. BARTLETT. It is just a question about what the gentleman has stated. Whereabout in section 5 do you find such words as would give to the Secretary of Commerce or the Bureau of Manufactures the right to exercise such control over manufacturers as it does over the insurance business?

Mr. TAYLER, of Ohio. I want to ask my friend what authority does section 6 give to the Secretary to authorize control? How much?

Mr. BARTLETT. It gives such as it now has or may be given by law.

Mr. TAYLER, of Ohio. Why, we can pass a law at any time. It gives it really no authority at all. It merely proceeds to say, in an unlegislative sort of a way, that if we pass a law some time in the future giving the Secretary power, he can exercise that power under the law which has given it to him.

Will the gentleman permit me to call his attention and the attention of the gentleman from Michigan to the fact that section 5, which provides for fostering and promoting and developing the various manufacturing industries in various ways as may be prescribed by the Secretary or as provided by law, is in identically the same language. The point, Mr. Chairman, that I was making was that the provision respecting the insurance department is exactly the same as the provision respecting all other departments, and it is folly, it is an imposition upon the intelligence of this House, to assume that by this act an effort is being made to do something more for the insurance business than is sought to be done respecting the business of manufacturing.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. CORLISS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman's time be extended three minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan asks that the time of the gentleman from Ohio be extended three minutes. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none.

Mr. CORLISS. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. The manufactured products enter into commerce, do they not?

Mr. TAYLER, of Ohio. I am willing to admit that for the sake of the argument. Mr. CORLISS. And the courts have held that all kinds of products of the farm and the factory are subject to the control of Congress when in the course of transportation from one State to another. Therefore Congress has control to a certain extent over manufactures, but in this instance-and I ask the gentleman the question in order that he may draw the distinction-in the case of insurance contracts the court has held that the contract is not commerce. You can not make it commerce, and the Federal power of our Government does not extend to that subject. How can you hold that it is analogous to the power of Congress to control manufactured products that are invariably engaged in commerce?

Mr. TAYLER, of Ohio. If the court has so held, this provision is harmless. It can not be useless in that it gathers and gives to the country useful information respecting that subject. But Congress has absolutely no power, although my friend intimates that it has, over the subject of manufactures; absolutely none, for that has a locus within the sovereign State, and Congress can in no wise exercise control over

the mere operation of manufacturing, whatever it may do with the product of that manufacture.

Mr. DE ARMOND. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Ohio hardly gives sufficient weight to a part of this provision sought to be stricken out. I take it that this provision is in for a purpose, that the words are put into it for office, that they are not merely idle and incidental. Here is what is said in section 6, among other things:

It shall be the province and duty of said Bureau, under the direction of the Secretary, to exercise such control as may be provided by law over every insurance company, society, or association transacting business in the United States outside of the State, Territory, or District wherein the same is organized.

The gentleman makes the point that this does not contain the legislation for carrying into full effect that provision. But it contains the provision, it provides for a bureau to exercise this function, to have control and to adopt rules and regulations for every insurance company or association, life, fire, marine, or of whatever kind, doing business outside of the State or Territory of its organization.

Now, every State in this Union, I presume-certainly nearly all of them-have laws regulating the operation, fixing the responsibilities, protecting the patrons of insurance companies organized beyond their borders and doing business within the several States. That power-however wholesome, constitutional, well organized, exercised with judgment, satisfactory to the people for the protection of patrons-is to be minimized, if not swept away, so far as it may be in the power of Congress to do it, by creating a Bureau organized and authorized to provide means and make rules and regulations and to control and direct the operations of these various companies whenever they carry on business outside of the immediate jurisdiction which created

them.

What is to become of the State laws in that case? Are the State laws, when in conflict with the regulations and rules prescribed by this Bureau, to control, or are they to give way? Is there to be a conflict to be settled by the courts? Evidently and clearly the proposition of the framers of this provision is to give to this Bureau, a Bureau of this new Department, the control of the vast and complex insurance business of the whole United States. Because it is a fact that a large per cent of all the companies not only exist and do business within the States and Territories or districts in which they are incorporated, but in other States and Territories and districts. Here is the provision intended to place all of them under the control, subject to the jurisdiction of a Bureau in this new Department of Commerce.

It is idle to say that legislation is not lacking to enable the chief of this Bureau to accomplish all that in the creation of the Bureau it is designed shall be accomplished. If there is reason to provide this Bureau with authority and power and scope and purpose in it to exercise these functions, then there is reason also for following with legislation furnishing the necessary machinery to do it. How idle it is to talk about creating this Bureau of supervision and control of the insurance business of the country and say that you have no purpose to legislate further to carry this out.

The purpose, clear and distinct, is to follow this with legislation which shall subject the entire insurance business of the United States to the dominion of a bureau chief in the city of Washington. [Applause.]

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. HEPBURN. I move that all debate on the amendment and the section close in ten minutes.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. GARDNER, of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. De Armond] is right when he assumes that this legislation is not proposed to be passed, and the foundation distinctly here laid for future legislation, without the expectation of making this a Bureau in Washington to control the insurance business of the United States. That is its object. Neither the gentleman from Ohio nor other gentlemen ought to be permitted to mislead this House by making disclaimers and talking of limitations of power, about which I much fear my distinguished friend from Michigan [Mr. Corliss] is mistaken.

Will the members of this House look at that bill and tell me what reason can be discovered for not incorporating this Bureau in the Bureau of Corporations, except the object be, as shown on its face, to give the Washington Bureau more extreme power over insurance corporations than you propose to give any bureau over any other corporation in the United States-trust or not. The declaration of the bill is specific that this Bureau is to exercise such control as may be provided by law. What will be the natural source of law on this subject?

The distinguished gentleman from Ohio is a sincere, earnest, and aggressive man. He has made it known to this House that he believes the insurance business of the United States ought to be controlled by a Washington bureau, and that much of it

interest in this subject on the part of those who support this amendment than one would think necessary under the circumstances. However, if the Supreme Court has held that this is not a subject of national legislation, then no harm can be done by the invasion of the State such as alarms so much my friend from New Jersey [Mr. Gardner]. This is a provision for investigating, for compiling all information respecting the subject of insurance. I was surprised that my friends who were so alarmed over here in reference to States rights in this section pertaining to insurance should not have been similarly alarmned when section 5 was under consideration. If it be an outrage upon the rights of the States to “foster, promote, and develop the various insurance industries of the United States by gathering, compiling, and publishing, and supplying all available and useful information concerning such insurance companies," surely it is a greater outrage upon the rights of the States that the same Department should have power to foster, promote, and develop the various manufacturing industries of the United States by doing exactly the same thing that section 6 provides may be done respecting the fostering and developing of the insurance business. I take it that the manufacturing business is just as important as the insurance business; and if the Supreme Court has held that we can not invade by national legislation the domain of insurance, we may be sure that we could no further invade the domain of manufacturing. At least the courts have not gone so far in that respect, and we have all through our States manufactures just as much threatened in the method in which they are carried on as insurance business can be affected by the identical provision respecting insurance which we find in this act.

Mr. BARTLETT. Will the gentleman yield to me for a question?