Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1949-06-27
Stock Exchange Suit
Indicated if u. ).
Wins Realtors Case

antitrust action against the New
York Stock Exchange If 1t wins.
a pending civil case against Dis
trict realtors.
The statement was made by
Victor H. Kramer before Judge
Alexander Holtzof as the trial Of
the Washington Real Estate Board.
the National Association Of Real
Estate Boards and Is individuals
opened on charges they fixed COM
missions in violation Of the Sher-
man Antitrust Act.
Today was given over to argu-
ments by counsel. Judge Holtz-
off, who already has studied the
record, indicated he would give
his decision tomorrow.
The action is being heard by
the judge without jury under
agreement which provides for ad-
mission of the evidence in a
criminal action which the Govern
ment lost a year ago.
In this case the Government Is
seeking an order permanently en-
joining the defendants from
engaging in the fixing OF COM |
missions for the sale of real estate
in Washington.
Asks About Exchange.
Judge sHoltzof said the crux
of the case is whether the rule
applicable to the fixing of prices
for commodities applies to per-
sonal services. The rule he men
toned holds that price fixing In
commodities is in violation OF the
law.
why has there been no at
tempt to bring suit against the
stock exchange and its members
as violators of the Sherman Act?'
he asked. There never has been
an attempt to prosecute the New
York Stock Exchange or the Chi
cago Board of Trade. 1t seems
to me that a fair inference is
that the Department Of Justice
holds that their actions DO not
constitute a violation"
He remarked that In the case
of the New York Stock Exchange
the members transact business
which comes from all parts OF the /.
country and is in interstate COM
n1erce.
Standard Commission Scale.
Here you bring case against
a little local activity and not
against one which is nation wide
the Judge remarked. Mr.. Kramer
replied that appropriate action"
may follow If this case is won,
assuming the facts to be as the
Judge stated.
Herbert N. Maletz, also justice
Department attorney, opened the
arguments for the Government.
He reviewed the evidence the Gov
eminent had presented in the
criminal case tending to show that
the Washington Real Estate Board
had a standard scale of commits
sions and that members were
pledged through their connection
with the national association to
observe the rules of the, national
body and the local body@ He also
cited evidence that there was q
standard form 7of sales contract
and that real estate sellers agreed
to pay commissions fixed" by the
real estate board.
Question of Law.
In a colloquy with Mr.. Maletz,
Judge Holtzoff remarked: LAS I
see it this case involves only one
question, and that a question of
law. There is no doubt there were
standard rates Of commission and
the question Is does that violate
the Sherman Act.
Mr.. Kramer later argued the
law on this question and said that
the Governments position Is that
price fixing is in itself illegal and
that the Sherman Act applies to
personal services.
The question was then raised
concerning labor unions fixing |
prices for the services Of their
members.
isn't the real estate board a
sort of labor union?" the Judge
asked.
Mr.. Kramer said no. that they
were mostly corporations and he
suggested that persons who are
capitalists and employ others are
not, labor unions.
Restraint of Trade Denied.
In an exchange with Mr.. Maletz
Judge Hotlzoff remarked that If
there were not a standard scale
of commissions, home owners SELL
ing their property would not know |
what commissions they would
have to pay. Mr.. Maletz con-
tended. however. that the real
estate men got together and
raised the scale.
Roger ]. Whiteford, attorney
for the national association. said
q search of the record would fail
to show any restraint OF trace,
undue or otherwise.
The Judge asked whether the
case does not come down to the
question whether what the Wash
ington board did was legal or
illegal. II 1t was Illegal, he re-
marked; then the charge applies
to the National board because the
National board encouraged the
local organization. Mr.. Whiteford
denied the National board en-
Outraged the local one.
william E. Leahy. attorney for
the Washington board, asserted
the charge of conspiracy cannot
stand because 1t was not proved.