Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/274/160
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:31:35+00:00

Document:
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION et al. v. CLAIRE FURNACE CO. et al.
That the reports were required 'for all the purposes and under all the authority granted to them by law, including the purpose of gathering and compiling said information for publication and the consequent regulation of the interstate commerce of said complainants resulting from such publication of the true trade facts as to all of the business of complainants and of others engaged in commerce in those commodities, and including the purpose of making reports to Congress and of recommending additional legislation to Congress.
Appellees were not charged with practicing unfair methods of competition (section 5, Act of Sept. 26, 1914 (Comp. St. § 8836e)), or violating the Clayton Act, c. 323, §§ 2, 3, 7, 8 ( 38 Stat. 730, 731, 732, being Comp. St. §§ 8835b, 8835c, 8835g, 8835h). Orders under such charges can be enforced only through a Circuit Court of Appeals. Section 11, Clayton Act (Comp. St. § 8835j); section 5, Federal Trade Commission Act (Comp. St. § 8836e).
The action of the Commission here challenged must be justified, if at all, under the paragraphs of sections 6 and 9. Act of September 26, 1914, copied below, and the only methods prescribed for enforcing orders permitted by any of these paragraphs are specified in sections 9 and 10 (Comp. St. §§ 8836i, 8836j). They are application to the Attorney General to institute an action for mandamus, and proceedings by him to recover the prescribed penalties.
'(f) To make public from time to time such portions of the information obtained by it hereunder, except trade secrets and names of customers, as it shall deem expedient in the public interest, and to make annual and special reports to the Congress and to submit therewith recommendations for additional legislation, and to provide for the publication of its reports and decisions in such form and manner as may be best adapted for public information and use.
There was nothing which the Commission could have done to secure enforcement of the challenged orders except to request the Attorney General to institute proceedings for a mandamus or supply him with the necessary facts for an action to enforce the incurred forfeitures. If, exercising his discretion, he had instituted either proceeding, the defendant therein would have been fully heard, and could have adequately and effectively presented every ground of objection sought to be presented now. Consequently the trial court should have refused to entertain the bill in equity for an injunction.
We think that the consent of the parties was not enough to justify the court in considering the fundamental question that has been twice argued before us. It was intended by Congress in providing this method of enforcing the orders of the Trade Commission to impose upon the Attorney General the duty of examining the scope and propriety of the orders, and of sifting out of the mass of inquiries issued what in his judgment was pertinent and lawful before asking the court to adjudge forfeitures for failure to give the great amount of information required or to issue a mandamus against those whom the orders affected and who refused to comply. The wide scope and variety of the questions, answers to which are asked in these orders, show the wisdom of requiring the chief law officer of the government to exercise a sound discretion in designating the inquiries to enforce which he shall feel justified in invoking the action of the court. In a case like this, the exercise of this discretion will greatly relieve the court and may save it much unnecessary labor and discussion. The purpose of Congress in this requirement is plain, and we do not think that the court below should have dispensed with such assistance. Until the Attorney General acts, the defendants cannot suffer, and, when he does act, they can promptly answer and have full opportunity to contest the legality of any prejudicial proceeding against them. That right being adequate, they were not in a position to ask relief by injunction. The bill should have been dismissed for want of equity.
This conclusion leads to a reversal of the decree of the District Court of Appeals, and a remanding of the case to the Supreme Court of the District with direction to dismiss the bill.
This appeal was taken four years ago. Nearly seven years have passed since the cause began-June 12, 1920. Able counsel have argued it twice before us, but none suggested that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the bill because there was an adequate remedy at law. Under well-settled doctrine such a defense may be waived by failure promptly to advance it. Reynes v. Dumont, 130 U. S. 354, 395, 9 S. Ct. 486, 32 L. Ed. 934; Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Benedict, 229 U. S. 481, 484, 33 S. Ct. 942, 57 L. Ed. 1288; American Mills Co. v. American Surety Co., 260 U. S. 360, 363, 43 S. Ct. 149, 67 L. Ed. 306.
J. W. WHITEHOUSE et al., Petitioners, v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY et al.

References: v. 
 § 8836
 § 8835
 § 8836
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.