Document: 386 U.S. 228 87 S.Ct. 998 18 L.Ed.2d 11 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Petitioner,v.JANTZEN, INC. No. 310. Argued Feb. 14, 1967. Decided March 13, Ralph S. Spritzer, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Edwin Rockefeller, respondent. Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case involves effect Act July 23, 1959, 73 Stat. 243 (Finality Act), upon orders issued by Federal Trade Commission under § Clayton Act, 38 734, prior to date former Act. The respondent claims that Finality repealed enforcement provisions 15 U.S.C. 21 (1958 ed.), and entered enactment are not now enforceable. Court Appeals agreed, held it had no jurisdiction enforce such directed proceeding be dismissed. 356 F.2d 253. In view pendency almost 400 conflict among circuits1 on point, we granted certiorari. 385 810, 76, 17 52. I. 2 facts disputed, save points relevant here, will stated in detail. Jantzen manufactures men's, women's children's apparel. On September 4, 1958, was charged with having violated 2(d) allowing discriminatory advertising promotional allowances certain its customers. did answer complaint. However, consented entry a cease-and-desist order against prohibiting further discrimination activities. agreement form were approved hearing examiner January 16, adopted Commission. 22, 1964, some five years after adoption ordered an investigation into charges 1959 consent order. stipulated before granting customers Chattanooga, Tenn., Brooklyn, N.Y. thereafter concluded It then applied affirming enforcing original application based third paragraph which authorized Commission, event obeyed, apply court appeals 'enforcement.' claimed amendment resulted repeal Commission's authority seek, courts' grant, affirmance orders. agreed dismissed lack jurisdiction. We reverse remand proceedings consideration light this opinion. II. 3 start proposition Congress intended strengthen hand As report Committee Judiciary Senate stated: 'The effectiveness * has long been handicapped absence adequate provisions. 726 would put teeth fill void existed many years.' S.Rep.No.83, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., (1959). procedures existing required investigate, complaint, prove violation could issue After issuance investigated proved might obtain compelling obedience. Only enforcement. And Comm'n v. Ruberoid Co., 343 470, 72 800, 96 L.Ed. 1081 (1952), contempt lie except allegations time proof failure or refusal obey order, previously affirmed. 4 eliminated these 'laborious, consuming, very expensive' procedures. S.Rep.No. 83, supra, at 2. Congressman Huddleston, one principal supporters bill later became House: 5 is perfecting other purpose than respect role same manner degree effectuated Wheeler-Lea amendments Act.' 105 Cong.Rec. 12732. 6 remarks Celler, Chairman House Committee, Roosevelt substantially same. 12730—12733. 7 Amendment clarified but amend those Under become final 60 days their petition review filed. 5(a) expressly provided outstanding latter instituted during 60-day period. 50 117. instead using language contains special provision, 2, reads as follows: 8 made section shall have any initiated fourth (Clayton) *. Each governed they day preceding 9 thought use significant that, unlike 5(a), 'does deal cease desist effective date, nor provide becoming within meaning amended deals solely begun Thus (of 11) continued limited purpose, namely, completion Appeals. (T)his strong indication knew, intended, purposes.' buttressed reading noting originally took position 'that days, new law, just *.' F.2d, 257. See Sperry Rand Corp. F.T.C., 110 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 288 403 (1961); F.T.C. Nash-Finch 5, 407 (1961). From this, indicated change pointed up conclusion 'the express.' III. 10 cannot agree. One error seems scope gives phrase 'proceeding (Emphasis supplied.) included only three four think not. believe word 'proceeding' used sense employed throughout Amendment, namely action brought alleged violator follows initiated' meant filing review. clear us last sentence 2: 'Each (§ Act) emphasize here said 'section' paragraphs 3—7, inclusive, section. entire preserved intact all predating apparent reason variance from procedure because heavy penalties attached Act.2 It, therefore, wished make applications pre-Finality petitions reference 'as (Finality) interpretation implicit our second Henry Broch & 368 360, 82 431, 353 (1962), where Brennan 'do instant order.' At 365, 434. note p. 434, out 'was December 10, 1957. enacted therefore do it. Comm'n, 403.' specifically '(e) nforcement due (pre-Finality occur left statute entered.' 406. Such holding supported fact nowhere denies power pre-existing most silent regard authority. Furthermore, caption itself well legislative history added weight interpretation. recites 'to more expeditious 243. certainly include making approximately dead letters. noted shows beyond contradiction sponsors responsible committees reporting passage believed legislation S.Rep. 3. Giving proven violators absolution hardly comport congressional intent. bottomed opening subsection (c) 'third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh of' 'are read follows.' But must whole heretofore. so doing cannot, Douglas said, ignore 'common sense, precedent, history' setting gave birth. United States Standard Oil 384 224, 225, 86 1427, 1428, 16 492 (1966). Holmes ago: Legislature decide what policy law be, if intimated will, however indirectly, should recognized obeyed. major premise expressed statute, induces enactment, may set terms discharge duty courts say: see you driving at, it, go before.' Johnson States, Cir., 163 F. 30, 32, L.R.A., N.S., 1194 (1908). 12 whether correct sensible construction compels opposite result reached That grant old filed ever capable subject who sought sanctions free violate them impunity. Consequently, separate forgiven. say file complaints come particularized written specific mischief violative unenforceable. There quite difference between proving Long, tedious, costly investigation, injury competition affirmative requirements necessary defenses cost justification, meeting competition, exclusive dealing, etc., avoided. Particularly merger cases simplified expedited. 13 considerations author sponsors—all stalwart champions antitrust enforcement—would strip weapons concerns already adjudged violators. Nor ascribe clearly result. can choices rejected one, Act's provision. Certainly evidence pre-1959 discard. remain faithful think, when find too enforceable 14 Reversed remanded. HARLAN, concurring. While I confess great difficulty through Court's conclusion, am content acquiesce my Brother CLARK's help Second Circuit's Motor Products, Inc., 371 613. Pacific-Gamble-Robison 18260 (C.A.9th Cir. 1962); Benrus Watch 27752 (C.A.2d 1962), case. raised $5,000 each continued.

Category: 7