Evening star., 1935-05-28

assent. Violations OF the provisions
of the codes are punishable as crimes.
Congress Not Permitted
To Abdicate or Transfer Trust.
Second. The question Of the delesa-
tion Of legislative power. We recently
had occasion TO review the pertinent
decisions and the general principles
which govern the determination of this
question. Panama Refining Co. VS..
Ryan, 293 u. 8. 388. The constitution
provides that "sll legislative powers
herein granted shall be vested in .
Congress Of the United States. which
shall consist of Senate and House
of Representatives" Art. I, sec. !. And
the Congress is authorized ito make all
laws which shall be necessary and
proper for carrying into execution"
its general powers. Art. /, sec. 8, par.
18. The Congress is not permitted to
abdicate or to transfer to others the
essential legislative functions with
which it Is thus vested We have re-
peatedly recognized the necessity of
adapting legislation y complex con-
ditions involving host of details with
which the National Legislature cannot
deal directly. We pointed out in the
Panama Co. case that the Constitution
has never been regarded as denying to
Congress the necessary resources of
f1exibility and practically, which will
enable 1t to perform its function in
laying down policies and establishing
standards, while leaving to selected
instrumentalities the making of sub
ordinate rules within prescribed limits
and the determination OF facts to
which the policy as declared by the
Legislature is to apply. But we said
that the constant recognition of the
necessity and validity of such pro-
visions, and the wide range of admin
iStrative authority which has been de-
veloped by means of them, cannot be
allowed to obscure the limitations of
the authority TO delegate, if our con-
stitutional system is to be maintained
Id, p. 42l.
Accordingly, we look to the statute
to see whether Congress has over
stepped these NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
Congress in authorizing codes of fair
competition" has itself established the
standards of legal obligation. thus per-
forming its essential legislative func-
ton, or, by the failure to enact such
standards, has attempted to transfer
that function to others.
The aspect in which the question is
now presented is distinct from that
which was before us in the case of
the Panama Co. There, the subject
of the statutory prohibition was de-
fined National industrial recovery act,
sec. 9 tc). That subject was the trans
portation in interstate and foreign
commerce of petroleum and petroleum
products which are produced or with
drawn from storage in excess OF the
amount permitted by State authority.
The question was with respect to the
range of discretion given to the Presi-
dent in prohibiting that transporta-
ton Id. PIP. 414. Ais. 430. AS to the
codes of fair competition" under sec
ton 3 of the act. the question is more
fundamental 1t is whether there Is
any adequate definition of the SUBJ
juct to which the codes are to be
addressed.
Fair Competition
Is Not Defined in Act.
What is meant by "fair competi-
tion," as the term is used in the act?
Does 1t refer to = category established
in the law, and is the authority to
make codes limited accordingly? Or
Is it used as q convenient designation
for whatever set Of laws the iOrmu-
lstors of q code for q particular trade
or industry may propose and the Pres
ident may approve subject to certain
restrictions), or the President may
himself prescribe, as being wise and
beneficent provisions for the govern
ment Of the trade or industry IN order
to accomplish the broad purposes of
rehabilitation, correction and expan-
sion which are stated in the first Sec
tion of title I?
The act does not define "fair COM
petition" Unfair competition as
known to the common law, is limit
ed concept. Primarily. and strictly,
it relates to the palming off oi ones
goods as those of rival trader. Good
year Manufacturing Co. VS.. Goodyear
IbuUbCI w., 1Ao We ~ OOo, OOH, 4AoWC
Scale Co. VS.. Wyckoff, Seamans g.
Benedict. 1913 U. s. 118, 140: Hanover
Milling Co. vs.. Metcalf, 240 U. S. 403,
413. In recent years, its scope has
been extended. 1t has been held to
apply to misappropriation as well as
Misrepresentation, to the selling of
anothers goods as ones own-to mis-
appropriation Of what equitably be-
longs to . competitor. International
News Service VS.. Associated Press, 248
U. 8. 2l5, 241, 242. Unfairness in
competition has been predicated of
acts which lie outside the ordinary
course of business and are tainted
by fraud, or coercion, or conduct 9TH
erwise prohibited by law. Id, p 258.
But it is evident tina. in its widest
range unfair competition" as 1t has
been understood in the law, does not
reach the objectives of the codes
which are authorized by the national
industry recovery act. The codes
may. indeed, cover conduct which
existing law condemns, but they are
not limited to conduct of that sort
The Government does not contend
that the act contemplates such q lin
itation. It would be opposed both to
the declared purposes Of the act and
to its administrative construction.
Unfair Competition" Involves
Specific Instances.
The Federal Trade Commission act
(section 81 introduced the expression
unfair methods of competition"
which were declared to be un,swful.
That was an expression new in the
law. Debate apparently convinced
the sponsors Of .he legislation that
the words unfair competition" in
the light Of their meaning at common
law. were too narrow. We have said
that the substituted phrase has
broader meaning. that 1t does not
admit Of precise Asanition. it, scope