Evening star., 1938-08-01

toward suCn activities; and IN fairness
to them and for their own protection,
| 1t must do so as far in advance as
possible. Such advance notice may
also be useful in calling the attention
of Congress to the departments inter-
probation of the law SO that possible
amendments may be considered.
Advance notice Of q contemplated
grand jury proceeding is not always
possible. Tactical reasons in some
cases, as where it is feared that wit
nesses may be approached, may compel
action without warning. These rea-
sons, however, do not exist In q pro-
ceeding against men Of the character
Of those engaged in the profession of
medicine
Moral Turpitude Not Involved.
In obtaining the cooperation neces-
sary to accomplish the departments
constructive aim in antitrust proceed
inss, it is necessary TO put the prosecu-
tion in Its proper setting. 1t is there
fore important to repeat that an III
dictment for violation of the antitrust
laws does not necessarily charge
crime involving moral turpltude. Thus,
in the present case the department
does not take the view that the Of
lenses committed are crimes which
reflect upon the character or high
standing OF the persons who may be
involved. The analogy to which this
proceeding should oe compared is that
of . prosecution for reckless driving,
committed by a person of distinction
and good will who is in a hurry to
meet his legitimate engagements.
The absence Of moral turpitude,
however, does not lessen the duty OF
the department to prosecute where 1t
believes violations OF the antitrust
laws have occurred. This duty has
been laid upon it by Congress. Con-
gress has given it no right to use the
distinction between malicious viola
tions OF the antitrust law and reck-
less or careless violations as basis
for its choice between civil and
criminal procedure.
Character Not Consideration.
Congress has not indicated that the
respectable character OF the defend
ants, or their achievements in other
fields, Is 4 consideration for the de-
partment's action. Such matters are
properly within its province in rec
ommending the type OF sentence. but
not in recommending the type OF
prosecution.
As the department has already an
nounced therefore, where evidence
Of violations Of the antitrust laws
exist it has no alternative except to
proceed before 4 grand jury. except
In those cases where past acQuiescence
or other special considerations have
made = criminal proceeding inequi-
table.
These Introductory observations are
necessary because the policy of is
suing statements Of this character Is
still new They are intended to sur
vey the general problem Of antitrust
policy Of which this suit is 4 part.
Their purpose is to create an atmos-
phere which leaves the door open to
q constructive proposal at any stage
Of the litigation. In order to accom-
plish this it Is important to UNDER
stand that many types of antitrust
viola atoms are in the nature Of mis-
demeanors and that the power Of the
courts to determine the sentence offers
ample opportunity to avoid undue and
unjustifled severity on any individual.
With the above resta tement Of our
general antitrust policy in mind. we
may proceed to consider the particu-
lar problems relating to the practice
Of medicine which form the back
ground Of this proceeding.
Although this proceeding concerns
especially the District Of Columbia, it
is selected because its importance Is
Nation wide and its value As 4 prece-