Evening star., 1939-11-02
Antitrust 'Remedv'

Antitrust Remedy
The oMahoney- Hobbs bill, little
publicized offspring OF the Monopoly
Committee providing heavy "civil
penalties" for violation of the anti
trust laws, is the objective Of a sharp
counterattack by the Merchants As
sociation OF New York, which is civ
ing national distribution to a report
prepared by Gilbert H. Montague
likening the "grotesquely drastic"
provisions of the measure to old
British law (which made sheep-steal-
Ing a capital offense."
Under present law, the report
points out, the Attorney General may
ask for an injunction restraining a
corporation from continuing prac-
tices in restraint Of trade, $4,000
fine against an offending concern
and a fine of like proportions along
with a years imprisonment for all
officers and directors of the corpora
tion responsible for the conditions
complained of.
The O'Mahoney- Hobbs bill provides
IN addition that the Attorney Gen.
eral may ask forfeiture by the corpo-
ration OF twice its total net income
during the whole period covering the
violation, and forfeiture by any off,
Ger or director having knowledge of
any act constituting any part of the
violation, of twice his total compen-
sation during the period of the viola
ton. On top of this, the individual
may be restrained permanently from
rendering further service to the
corporation or receiving further
compensation from it. He also may
be restrained permanently from en-
gaging in business in competition
with the corporation.
The bill is in line with Monopoly
Committee report which declared
that "the adding of suitable civil
remedies to the antitrust procedure
will create an enforcement method
which, in the ordinary case not in
volving moral turpitude is not only
fairer but more effective"
To this, the Montague report re-
spends that these additional reme-
dies, however, are neither fair nor
effective, when judged by statements
contained in the committees report
and by past experience in procuring
compliance with the antitrust laws"
It points out, for example, that the
bill provides eight possible penalties
for antitrust law violation, and that
there Is nothing to prevent the At
torney General from seeking to in
woke all in the same proceeding.
Continuing, the report says that
the forfeiture provisions Of the bill
are based on the assumption that
antitrust violations always are de-
liberately entered into, but that this
is refuted by the Monopoly Commit
tees own report regarding "the re-
spectacle character of defendants
involved";; and that "the offense is
usually not one involving moral
turpitude," but instead is "done by
responsible and reasonably well-in-
tentioned men,"
It emphasizes also the conflicts
over interpretations Of the antitrust
laws, Offering as illustration the
lower court reverses the Government
has sustained in recent months in
the medicine, milk and oil cases. On
behalf of the bill, however, Senator
O'Mahoney has explained that it is
designed to prescribe such clear, per-
sonal penalties upon the officers and
directors who are responsible for
commercial policy that they will not
be willing to undertake the chance Of
personal loss in civil damages II they
advise and carry through a trade
policy which they know to be inher-
emily wrong and plainly condemned
by law"
While the measure, now in the
Senate Judiciary Committee, is de-
Tended by Senator OMahoney as
necessary to overcome deficiencies Of
existing legislation, and justified by
the evils it seeks to cure, there is
grave doubt as to whether in the
final analysis it would not be harmful
instead, with the harsh penalties
Stacking business with fear and un-
certainty.