Norwich bulletin., 1920-04-20
Rlbs Federal Trade
 Commissioner Power
Ruling of Supreme Court of District of Columbia Against Authority to En- force Monthly Reports of Production Costs.

Washington, April 19.-The supreme court of the District of Columbia ruled today that the federal trade commission was without authority to enforce it's or der requiring monthly reports of produc- tion costs from coal mine companies and other industries.
 In granting the application of the Maynard Coal company of Kentucky and Ohio for an injunction to restrain the commission from proceeding to collect penalty of s100 a day for every day of failure to report Justice Bailey declared that the powers the commission sought were vast and unprecedented" and be- yond the province of congress to convey. The courts decision affects virtually every mining and manufacturing com pany in the country, it was said tonight by corporation lawyers. The order call ! ing for reports was issued by the com mission in January.
 Justice Bailey held that if the busi- sness of the concern from which produc- tion cost reports were demanded was en- tirely in interstate commerce the con- missions claim of authority might be valid. but that in the Maynard case the 1 commission obviously was demanding in- | formation from company whose busi- ness was both intra and interstate.
 "The visitorial power of congress is limited to that part of the business over i which it has control, and which, under I the constitution, it has power to regu- late,'' the decision said.
 Tn order for the commission to have the power to require reports as to mining of coal and intrastate shipments it would have to prove that such information i, necessary to or connected with some subject over which the general govern
 ment has power. The commission ha.
 not the power to exact the reports ant
 information sought"
 J. s. Foster, general counsel for thu
 National Coal association, declared in ;;
 statement that the decision was far
 reaching.
 If the contention of the commission
 had been sustained" MT Foster said, 'i would necessarily have followed that tn commission had the right to require no
 only such detailed reports of cost of pro duction from coal operators but from al manufacturing and commercial. concern
 which ship any portion of the product
 or articles in which they deal in inter , state commerce and would force all sue
 companies to report in detail every iter ' of cost and profit, as we'll as their finan : cial condition
 The trade commission today announce that it cost s2.32 ton to produce coz
 in January this year as compared wit all average cost or SZ.U4 ton per mont for the year 1918. The figures were base on reports obtained by the commissions
 under the order which Justice Baile = ruled was invalid and came from 1,5S : operators.
 , The average sales realization for Jal T uary was S2.7S q ton as compared vii $2.60 in 1918, in the case of I,272 ident ' cal operators, leaving a margin betwee 7 cost of production and sales realizatic of 0.46 a ton in January as compare > with an average of 056 ton in 191 :: This did not represent the actual prof Il to the operators. however. since the pr duction costs submitted did not inclut
 selling expense. interest, excess prof
 tax and other items
 or the total production cost per ton Y January by far the largest item W.
 labor. amounting to $1.74 as compar, e with $1.49 in 1918 The largest produ l.. tion cost reported-$3. .52-was in Arka, y ssa.
 IL The increase in average cost of pr /. duction in 1920 as compared with 1s1 o the statement said. was attributable [. e two causes-the higher wage scale plac i in ef1ect in November. 1919. and a sns .s decrease in the January output as COT 'i pared with the monthly average for 1s1