Evening star., 1935-05-28

being left to judicial determination as
controversies arise. Federal Trade
Commission VS.. Raladam Co., 283 U.
S. 643, 648, 649: Federal Trade Com
mission VS.. Keppel. 29l U. S. 304. 80
3l2. What are 'unfair methods Of
competition are thus " be deter
mined in particular instances. upon
evidence. in The light of particular
conditions and of what
Is found 70 be l. Speciflc and sub
stantial public interest. Federal Trade
Commission VS.. Beech-Nut Co., 257
u. S. AL, 453; Federal Trade Com
mission VS.. Klesner, 280 U. 8. l9, 27,
28: Federal Trade Commission VS..
Raladam Co., supra: Federal Trade
Commission VS.. keppel, supra; Fed
eral Trade Commission vs.. Algoma
Co, 29l U. S. 81, 10. To make this
possible, Congress set up special
procedure. A commission, Q quasi
judicial body, was created. Provision
was made for formal complaint, for
notice and hearing, for appropriate
findings Of fact supported by adequate
evidence. and for judicial review to
give assurance that the action Of the
commission is taken within its statu-
tory authority. Federal Trade Com
mission VS.. Raladaia Co, supra: Fed
eral Trade Commission VS.. Klesner,
supra.
In providing for codes. the national
industrial recovery act dispenses with
this administrative procedure and
with any administrative procedure of
an analogous character. But the diff
ference between the code plan of the
recovery act and the scheme of the
Federal Trade Commission act lies
not only in procedure but in subject
matter. We cannot regard the fair
competition" Of the codes as antithet-
Ical to the unfair methods of COM
petition" Of the Federal Trade Com
mission act. The fair competition"
OF the codes has a much broader
range and q new significance The
recovery act provides that it shall not
be construed 20 impair the powers of
the Federal Trade Commission. but,
when a code is approved its provisions
are to be the "sta ndaIds of fair COM
petition" for the trade or industry
concerned, and any violation Of such
standards in any transaction in or
affecting interstate or foreign COM
merce is to be deemed AN unfair
method of competition" within the
meaning of the Federal Trade Com
mission act. Sec. 3 tb).
For q statement of the authorized
objectives and content of the codes
Of fair competition" we are referred
repeatedly to the declaration of pol
icy' In section l of title I Of the re-
covery act. Thus, the approval of a
code by the President is conditioned
on his finding that it will tend to
effectuate the policy Of this title"
Section 3 (a). The President Is au-
thorized to impose such conditions
for the protection of consumers, COM
petitors. employees and others, and in
of the public interest, and
may provide such exceptions to and
exemptions from the provisions of
such code as the President in his dis
cretion deems necessary to effectuate
the policy herein declared" Id. The
policy herein declared" is manifestly
that set forth in section /. That
declaration embraces a broad range
Of objectives. Among them we find
the elimination of unfair competitive
practices" But even II this clause
we're to be taken to relate to practices
which fall under the ban of existing
law, either common law or statute,
1t is still only one of the authorized
aims described in section l. 1t Is
there declared to be 1.-The policy Of
flow of interstate and foreign COM
merce which tend to diminish the
amount thereof. and to provide for
the general welfare by promoting the
organization of industry for the pur-
pose of cooperative action among
trade groups, to induce and maintain
united action of labor and manage
ment under adequate governmental
and supervision. to eliminate
unfair competitive practices, to pro-
mote the fullest possible utilization of
the present productive capacity of in
dustries. to avoid undue restriction of
production Except as may be tenn
porarily required), to increase the con-
sumption of industrial and agricul.
tural products by increasing purchas-
ing power. to reduce and relieve unem-
ployment. to improve standards of
labor and otherwise to rehabilitate in
dustry and to conserve natural re-
Purpose Is to Authorize
New, Controlling Prohibitions.
Under section 3, whatever may tend
10 ef1ectuate" these general purposes
may be included in the codes of fair
We think the conclu-
sion is inescapable that the authority
fought to be conferred by section 8
was not merely to deal with unfair
practices" which offend
against existing law, and could be the
subject of judicial condemnation with
out further legislation, or to create
administrative machinery for the ap-
olication of established principles of
aw to particular instances OF viola
ion. Rather, the purpose is clearly
rolling prohibitions through codes of
avs which would embrace what the
would propose, and what
he President would approve or pre-
scribe. as wise and beneficent meas
Tres for the Government of trades
and industries in order to bring about
heir rehabilitation, correction and
development, according to the general
of policy in section l.
Codes of laws of this sort are styled
codes of fair competition"
We find no real controversy upon
his point, and we must determine
he validity of the code in question in
his aspect AS the Government cam
idly says in its brief: "The words
policy of this title clearly refer to
he policy which Congress declared
n the section entitled Declaration Of
/. AL Of the policies