Evening star., 1938-08-28
Cummings
Continued From First Page.)

cummings
Continued From First Page.)
would have eliminated the objection
able practices. The committee held
q hearing but took no action against
Judge Geiger.
Amendments in Brief.
| In brief, the four amendments or
Qualifications of the law sought by
the department as a result of the oil
case are:
/. An amendment Of the Clayton
Act providing that knowledge on the
! part of corporate officers of violations
Of penal provisions of the antitrust
laws shall give rise to a prima facie
presumption that they authorized the
illegal acts.
y. An amendment providing more
stringent penalties for violations of
the law so that the penalties shall
act as a real deterrent against repeti-
tions" Of the violations.
g. An amendment authorizing an
appeal by the Government in anti
trust cases from orders granting new
trials after defendants have been
found guilty by the jury.
4. A determination whether a trial
judge has legal authority to free
defendant after conviction by the
jury, and an amendment removing
such power if it be found to exist.
Jury Convicted Defendants.
In the Madison case, brought
against the Standard Oil Co. of In
diana and several other defendants
the Government charged that gasoline
prices had been illegally fixed in 10
Is corporations and 80 individuals
guilty
Judge Stone sustained the verdict
as to IL corporations and S individ-
uals, fining the corporations $4,000
each and the individuals ST. 900 each.
| He ordered new trials as to 3 cor
porations and Is individuals and dis
missed the entire proceedings, despite
! the guilty verdict, against corpora
/ IlOn ana III nQ1VlQualS.
! The first amendment sought by the
department grew out of the ruling by
Judge Stone that the evidence pre-
sented was sufficient to convict cer-
! tain of the corporations of violating
| the law, but was not sufficient to con-
vict any individual employees or Off
cials of those corporations.
Declaring such a condition pre-
sented an anomalous situation" Mr.
Arnold's statement added:
Substantially the same evidence
was offered against the individuals
and their corporations. BY failing to
hold those officials guilty along with
the corporations. the court in effect
is establishing the principle that there
laws without the Intervention of any
human agency"
To Accelerate Business.
Stressing the need for clarifying
such situation. Mr.. Arnold said the
purpose of the corporate fiction is to
accelerate business enterprise, not to
shield individuals from penalties for
violations of the law committed under
the cloak of tha fiction"
Urging legislation to impose more
severe penalties on convicted violators.
Mr.. Arnold said:
"A fine of $4,000 imposed upon
| corporate officer is not an adequate
penalty for a violation of the anti
trust laws-a violation which has re-
suited in losses of millions of dollars
to consumers.
The department is constantly
hampered in its enforcement by the
view that great business organizers
should not be prosecuted in the Grim
inal courts for offenses which NAV
have occurred as the result of reck-
lessness rather than malicious con-
duct. But an antitrust violation is
not crime requiring specific intent.
1t is rather in the nature of public
tort Enforcement is not primarily
concerned with intent. but with the
economic consequences of aggressive
corporate policies which destroy inde-
pendence of business. Penalties
should be measured chiefly with ref
erence to the economic injury in
f1icted on the public rather than the
evil motive"
Trial Cost U. S. S179,45O.
He pointed out that the total fines
imposed IN the case were $65.O0O,
while it cost the Government s179,-
$50 to try it.
If small fines are imposed, he said,
the result is that corporation and
Its oft1cers may unlawfully extract
millions from the purse Of the con-
suming public, provided only that the
corporation stands prepared to pay
back to the Government a few thou
sand dollars" The act provides for
a maximum fine Of $4,000 for each
offense.
The request for legislation author
izing an appeal by the Government
from orders granting new trials raises
serious constitutional questions, but
officials of the department were said
to feel good case can be made out
in support of the proposal.
Mr.. Arnold cited several reasons
which he said made it desirable to
grant the Government the right of
appeal from such orders. One, he
said, was the practical impossibility
OF securing a final determination of
the rights of the Government under
the law unless an appeal can be taken.
He also emphasized the expense and