The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1916-01-10
ANTITRUST LAWS
tcOnripusd Prom p.rst p.r.,

which are now pending in the supreme
court.
This led 20 the question OF the de.
partment enforcing the law in those
cases which are admittedly doubtful.
On that point the attorney genera
stated that where men have entered
INTO a transaction believing in good
tatth that the transaction is a lawful
one. me subsequently upon complaint
made he department reaches the con
clusion that the transaction was not
IN accordance with the statute but is
yet satisfied with the good faith and
innocent purpose of the parties and
can see that there was ground for the
view OF the law upon which they acted,
II has not been and would not be the
policy OF the department to invoke ex-
IRENE penalties against them. In suca
a case the department would consider
that the just and appropriate and
quickest way OF enforcing the law
would be by a civil proceeding in which
the question involved could be contest
ed or a consent decree entered, ac-
cording to the defendants desire. or by
q notice 10 the parties OF the depart
ments conclusion with opportunity to
abandon or modify the transaction.
The choice as between these two pro
ceedures would be determined bv the
circumstances OF the particular cases.
The attorney general claimed no origi-
nal idea for this policy. On the con
trary he state that II was not original
nor peculiar to the antitrust law. but
is the policy OF the department.
Too Early to ParticularlZe.
In this connection the attention
OF the attorney general was called
TO paragraph f. Of Section 6 OF the
Federal Trade Commission law
which authorizes the commission on
application OF the attorney general
10 investigate and make readjust-
ments OF the business OF anv cor.
p%orations alleged TO be violating the
antitrust laws. in order that the cor
poratton may maintain its original
management and conduct OF business
in accordance with law and he was
asked whether he could state what
The policy OF the department OF ius-
tice would be with regard 10 invok-
ing that provision. He replied that
while he felt certain that this would
prove TO be a most ~seryiceable pro-
vision in solving practical questions
which often arise in the enforcement
OF the antitrust laws. IL was as vet
too early. in his judgment to at.
tempt 10 p~articularize as TO the cases
in which the department of Justice
should call upon the Trade Commits
] for assistance under this pro-
vision.
Speaking generally. he stated that
he did not understand that the pro-
vision contemplated hat ne should
refer TO the commission the question
whether the law had been violated
IN a given case. but rather questions
OF the feasibility. adequacy or advis.
ability Of proposed remedies from a
practical standpoint. Where ques.
uons Of tine latter sort do not arise
or where they arise in a form which
presents no difficulty. no purpoke
would be served. OF course. bv bav.
ing the parties 20 over the same
ground before the commission that
had already been gone over before
the department.
on the other hand. where i'm work
ing out the remedy i'm a particular
case difficult questions OF business or.
sanitation and Of finance shall be- en-
countered. b. Will De the desire and
the policy OF the department to seek
the assistance OF the trade commis.
sion.
The discussion then turned 10 the
measures taken 10y the department 10
guard against prosecutions for when
there is no just ground. ON this
point the attorney genera stated that
no p~ro''cdlnc l- ever instituted until
after The most nainstakinr and u.
haustive INVESTIGATION Of the facts
which BE- is possible 10 make
4 TO the cases iu which both the
department and che federal trade com.
mission are charlcd with the enforce.
ment of the law a4 under the Clayton
acf. The attorney general stated thar
che department. would. iu general b.
guided by the principle which governs
fh" federal and the state courts in
case. vhor they have concurrent iur-
I.dIsfIor