The Daily Alaska empire. [volume] (Juneau, Alaska) 1926-1964, 1927-04-19
History Of Case

WASHINGTON. April 19.-The in
/ 1uisitorial power of Congress ova
business was brought into question
when acting under authority cor
| ferrod upon it by Congress in 1919
to collect information regarding the
production, ownership, manufacture.
storage and distribution of foodstuff5
or other necessaries. the Federal
Trade Commission called upon tha
Claire Furnace Company and twen-
! ty-one other corporations engaged in
selling finished or semi-finished steel
products to make reports on their
| business.
Among other things the Commits
| sion wanted to know in detail the
lquantity Of thair .ss>aacts, the eara.
/ city of their plants, cost of man
ufacturing and price obtained. Some
of the corporations were also en-
gagged in producing and selling coal.
and similar information in that lin
of business was called for,
Data Is Refused
When the companies refused to
! furnish the data, suits against two
| of them were begun in the fed eral
courts in New Jersey and Pennsyl-
vania The twenty-five corporations
retalliated by entering the court 5
of the District of Columbia. where
they obtained an INDUCTION restrain
| ing the Commission from further
proceedings to compel the submis-
sion of the reports
! The reports called for by the
Commission were to be made month
-. ;,.. Il ,.1a Hon
ed on the ground that while Con
gress had authority over interstate
! commerce it had none over mar.
ufacturng or mining The informa-
tion requested by the Commission
did not differentiate between pro
ducts moving in interstate commerc .
and those which did not. The con
porations explained that their bust
ness was conducted as whole, with
mo segregation of that part which
entered interstate commerce.
Value to Congress
Asserting that the information
sought would be used in such way
as to conceal the business secrets
of each corporation, the Commission
insisted that the public was entitled
to be advised concerning production
costs, and that the data would be
lof value to Congress in determining
whether additional legislation was
necessary to protect the consumer
against profiteering.
In arguing the case in the Supreme
Court the government pointed out
that G5 per cent of the total output
of the corporations was sold in in
terstate commerce, and that the bulk
of the raw materials used by them
in their business which averaged
$500, 100000 year was also tran
sported in interstate commerce.
At the time the law was pass ad
the government said the press, the
public and state and national govern
ments were giving great attention t.
the enormous increase in the cos
of the great majority of the neces
saries of life The information call
ed for was only step in the in
vestigation which the Commissio,
planned for the purpose of estab
fishing at first hand production cost:
for comparison with wholesale am
retail prices, the object being, j
was explained. to use publicity t.
regulate and reduce il possible con
sumption costs.
VisitoriaI Powers
The courts of the District of Colum
bia held. however. that the powe
of Congress to regulate the busi
ness of corporations engaged in in
lterstate commerce was limited stric'
lly to their interstate business. Th
visitorial power of Congress whic
| -.
the courts declared. was directe
almost wholly at manufacturing ops
, rations over which Congress had n
jurisdiction. Nor did it have author
ity to require manufacturing COY
Germs to make reports to it cor
(Cou linnnd 0n Daga Tuun L