Evening star., 1949-07-19
U. 5. Business Bignes,
No Crime in Itself
Under Trust Laws
Clark Statement Before
House Judiciary Group
Worthy Of Close Study
By David Laurence

American business is not crime
nor Is it likely to be prosecuted
by the Federal Government under
the antitrust laws.
This statement may be derived
from a close study Of the testi-
mony rendered by Attorney Cen
eral Tom Clark before the House
Judiciary Committee which is
surveying the antitrust laws. He
says:
I'VE have not attacked bigness
although we have been accused
of it-because OF bigness itself.
We have attacked bigness only
when it had the power to restrain
trade, to allocate markets. to cut
down production. to fix prices. to
do things that were in violation
Of the antitrust laws. That is
the only time we have attacked
bigness. We have taken the posi-
ton that bigness in itself and
by itself aside from other activ-
ity would not be illegal, although
in the tobacco case the Supreme
Court came pretty close in declar-
ing power itself-the power to
violate this law. the power to con-
trol-was in itself bad"
Comments on Case.
The Attorney General, during
this same testimony. took occa-
sion to make passing comment
on the case just filed under the
antitrust laws against United
States Rubber, the Du Pont Com
pany, and General Motors, respec-
lively. He declares:
"It is a case in which we at
tempt to secure sale OF stock
owned by the Du Points in certain
corporations. Unlike some OF the
news stories on that case. it IS
not an attempt to force any dis
solution OF any corporations at
ALL"
The Attorney Generals men
ton of the Du Pont case was not
amplified, though in his petition
filed in the courts recently he out
lined the interlocking stock owner
ship existing between the three
companies and argued that SUCH
control through ownership and
interlocking directorates tended
to lessen competition and that the
remedy lay in the complete di-
vorcement Of the three companies.
The companies in question have
announced their determination to
resist in the courts any plan to
compel them to get rid Of what
they consider good investments by
one company in another company,
especially since in all three in
stances the ownership complained
of is a minority interest and has
not been objected to at any time
by the holders Of the majority
stock.
Speaking of the tobacco case.
the Attorney General made 1t
clear for the first time that. while
the filing of criminal indictments
has been resorted to on occasion,
this method does not provide ade-
quate relief or remedy because 1t
is necessary anyway to file a civil
suit and obtain a consent decree
thereafter.
Representative Michener. Re-
publican, Of Michigan, asked a
question particularly about the
tobacco cases in which individual
officers of major tobacco COM
panies were convicted and paid
fines. It was a criminal suit in
which the Government alleged
that the companies bought their
tobacco on identical price bases
and had the power to fix prices to
the public. The point was made
by the court that collusion and
conspiracy need not be proved and
that the mere existence OF the
large units in the tobacco business
confirms the power to fix prices
where one company invariably
follows the action Of the other.
Criminal Suits No Guide
"And you have not brought a
civil case" asked Representative
Michener, ITO carry out what you
intended to accomplish through
the criminal case?"
I'VE have been negotiating with
the defendants" replied the At
torney General, Gin an effort to
try to take the decision Of the
Supreme Court in that case and
try to place it in a decree. So far
we have not filed suit. How
ever, we will if we are unable to
agree on the provisions of it. We
will then bring a civil action"
This is the first official intima-
ton that criminal suits, while
spectacular in themselves, do not
by their results furnish anybody a
guide as to what can or cannot be
uUllc ulluCl WIG oI4Ult1 uoV Ad Wo' ~
is the first public word, too, that
the American Tobacco Co.. Lig-
gett g. Myers and Reynolds To-
bacco Co. have been under pres
sure from the Justice Department
to sign a consent decree and that
the negotiations thus far have not
reached the point where a civil
suit can be regarded as unneces-
sary to establish the rights of the
Government under the antitrust
laws. In view of the broad impli-
cations of the Supreme Courts
opinion in the tobacco case, any
consent decree entered, whether
by agreement or as a result of
Court action, would do more to
answer the question as to how far
the Government intends to go in
attacking business than any suit
fled thus far.
Reproduction Rishts Eessrvsd)
NIylEl:rl