Evening star., 1940-07-27

the department applies the law as
between different classes of citizens
and to the use of the power OF
criminal indictments to eXtort from
induStry's executives certain conces-
sions in their business practices
which courts have not adjudicated
heretofore or outlined in the prece-
dents Of the past.
The subject has come up because
the department has just brought
criminal indictments against 33 eX-
ecutives of more than score OF
tobacco companies and the question
has been raised as to why civil
proceedings were not used. Here Is
the procedure of the department
where labor organizations are in
Volved as taken from an official
pronouncement dated last March II:
First. the labor organization may
submit TO the Department Of Justice
a full statement of the facts about
any activity which it has under
taken or desires to undertake which
restraints interstate commerce IN
way the union considers reason
able. It the department finds tnat
such activity violates the law, it viii
so inform the union which there
after must act at its peril in the
event that it disagrees with the de-
partment's position.
Forecasts Civil Procedure.
IF the department is not in a
position to state positively that the
practices are illegal AT the time
the plan is submitted, either because
of lack of personnel to investigate
or for any other reason. and the
union decides to go ahead with
the proposed activity. any future
action on the part of the depart
ment will be through civil proceed
ings. This policy has been adopted
because it is not fair to keep any
organization under the hazard of
criminal prosecution where it has
submitted to the department all
the facts and has been unable to
receive definite answer.
when the department has Sc
cured or is in the process of seek
Ing a criminal indictment for vio-
latlon OF the antitrust laws. the
criminal proceedings sometimes may
be dropped and replaced by a sat
tsfactory consent decree. In these
cases. however, the criminal pro-
ceedings cannot be terminated by
mere promise to refrain in the
future from the unlawful acts
charged When the defendants
In criminal action propose to the
department decree which not only
terminates the acts complained of
but provides safeguards against
their resumption which are clearly
more constructive than the prob
able results of successful prosecu-
ton, the department believes that
the public interest is best served by
acceptance of the decree and dis
continuance of the prosecution.
Another statement by the Justice
Department dated November, 1899.
SAYS: In our anxiety to be fair to
labor, we are not subiecting to
criminal prosecution practices which
can be justified even under the
dissenting opinions of the United
States Supreme Court"
Companies Issue Statement.
One of the tobacco companies has
Issued statement declaring it has
made available every document re-
quested by the department. and as
serting:
The real basis of this prosecu-
ton is not any violation of law on
She part of the tobacco companies
1t IS brought against the tobacco in
ouStrN for one purpose: To repu-
olate established economic principles
and to promote economic theories
wholly foreign to American prin-
clples Of fair competition and in
olVldual enterprise-theories which
have never received sanction in the
law courts of this country"
What are the facts? Did the
Justice Department read the dis
sentlng opinions Of the courts and
find that they did not sanction
what is being done in marketing
tobacco products? If the prac-
tlSCS oIc IloG COFeISu Dy present
rulings of the court but by earlier
decisions, would the department
give the tobacco companies a chance
to have the law clarified by civil
proceedings, as apparently it has
announced it would do for labor?
This is the true basis of the dis
elimination, but the real objection
Is that the department arrogates to
itself complete discretionary power
to say what it thinks is legal or
illegal. If court were to undertake
to say this and issue an order, it
would be understandable, but here
the department sets itself up as
prosecutor and judge and applies
In its own discretion punitive
weapon-the criminal Indictment
depending on what it arbitrarily
may decide is legal or illegal.
Accusation Not Proof.
1t never has been the function
OF the department or the weapon
OF lndlctment to fix guilt. Mere
accusation Of guilt is not proof yet
mind as to the probable judgment of
the courts and chooses its weapons
and demands consent DEGREES under
threat OF criminal prosecutions un-
less those accused should bow to
the will of the Justice Department.
1t was erroneously stated here a
couple of days ago that the depart
ment didn't use criminal indict-
ments in labor cases, but the truth
Is the weapon is used almost en-
tirely against the A. F.. of L. unions
and rarely if ever against the c. I,
O., which, of course, is thus favored
by the administration policy. Ref
erence was made also to the Apex
case, where the department was
repreSented in news GiSna trheS or