merce was concerned, and it might be found very difficult in practice to do that.

Senator BRANDEGEE. You have got this situation also that I do not quite clearly see yet. This bill contemplates that this association for the purpose of facilitating foreign trade shall be made up of individuals or partnerships or other corporations. This bill would permit of the steel companies of the country, for instance, separate corporations, to combine in an association for export trade, would it not?

Mr. CROWELL. I take it so; yes, sir.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Then while the Sherman law is to be relaxed upon this combined association for the purposes of its foreign trade, it is to remain in full force upon all the units of the association? Senator ROBINSON. Yes.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Who are doing business in our domestic trade, and how could they be kept separate rather confuses me.

Senator ROBINSON. That is exactly the thought I had in mind. Mr. CROWELL. I recognize that contradiction but that would be solved largely by the classification, by some mode of classification showing which are primarily engaged in export trade and which are primarily engaged in domestic trade, and it would tend more and more to sharpen the line of distinction between the two. The object of giving larger latitude is to get the largest measure of cooperation. If you say "solely" export trade then you limit the scope of the principle, and I am inclined to think you limit it very seriously. Senator POINDEXTER. That is the purpose of the act, to limit it. the object of the act is to exclude domestic commerce.

Mr. CROWELL. If you limit it too much, the thing will not grow; the thing will not be born. If you do not limit it at all you will not have any specialization.

Senator POINDEXTER. Let me ask you one question. Proprietary corporations, so to speak, will be engaged in domestic commerce. We will say the steel corporation and the independent steel companies form an association to engage in foreign trade. This law would permit that so long as that association was engaged solely in foreign. trade, but it would not restrict the activities of the steel corporation and the independent steel companies in their domestic trade?

Mr. CROWELL. No, sir; I should not think it would.

Senator ROBINSON. And in addition to that the corporation formed for the purpose of engaging primarily in foreign trade might absorb the entire domestic trade by reason of the fact that it was immune from the operation of the antitrust law in the domestic trade as well as in the foreign trade. You see my point, do you not?

Mr. CROWELL. Yes, sir; I see it; but I say in the amendment to section 2, where I propose to make it subject to the provisions of the Sherman Antitrust Act, forbidding monopoly, you would protect yourself against any such development, it seems to me.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Will you repeat that amendment about monopoly?

Mr. CROWELL. In line 17, section 2, after the word "association," "subject to the limitations therein forbidding monopoly."

Senator BRANDEGEE. Did you strike out the word "solely" in line 15?

Mr. CROWELL. Yes, sir: I struck it out entirely.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Crowell, I have not been here during your entire statement. Would you be kind enough to take one of the drafts of this bill and amend it as you suggest and inclose it to me? Mr. CROWELL. I shall be glad to do so, Mr. Chairman.

If I may speak just a moment on general principles. I understand the main purposes of this bill are, first, to safeguard the three great acts regulating the trade of the United States and of foreign trade, beginning with the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, coming down to the measures of 1914. That is the one object. The second object is to remove that measure of uncertainty that hangs over the effort to develop our foreign trade, so that the legal status of this new organization may go on freely, honestly, and with earnestness exploiting the field for the benefit of our domestic industries and the improvement of our foreign trade.

The third object is to equip the exporting interests with a fighting machine, organized somewhat on a similar plane with that which they have to meet in the foreign trade field. And that third feature is so important to me that unless it is in some way attained we can not expect to sell our goods which require selling; we will continue to sell our goods that do not require any selling, but otherwise we shall be at a serious disadvantage.

The public is protected, it seems to me, sufficiently from the development of such an organization; with the new liberties it has it is protected sufficiently by coupling it up with the Federal Trade Commission, which at any time can be appealed to if this new organization is regarded as violating any of the laws which pertain to its normal field of operation; therefore, I do not see any serious danger in taking this step, either to our traditional policy on the subject or to the interests of the smaller trading units that may enter into foreign trade activities.

The principle, as I take it, is intended to promote the cooperation of the smaller organizations and to enable them, if they wish, to join with the larger corporations in developing a field which is more or less new to them. And if this is put under the supervising control of the Federal Trade Commission it seems to me we shall be taking a safe step, looking at it from the general economic standpoint; and I do not myself see any legal dangers in the way of it. It is only a question of how wide the scope to be given shall be. If we want to limit the scope to a narrow experimental field, then provide that this cooperation shall be solely engaged in export trade. If we want to broaden the scope, then make it that this association shall be primarily interested in the export trade.

Senator BRANDEGEE. The only reason that the supervision of the Federal Trade Commission does not seem to me to be quite sufficiently reliable is-I know you perhaps do not agree with me and others do not-is that I do not regard the Federal Trade Commission's duty of preventing unfair method in competition as being a sufficient, definite standard for them to regulate all this foreign business.

Mr. CROWELL. As I see it it is a point where the lightning can strike. If anybody has a complaint there is the place he can go and he can state his case there, and we have investigating agents

that will look into the matter and make some scientific analysis and synthesis of the results.

Senator BRANDEGEE. I know, but there are those who think that what is an unfair method of competition is a definite thing and that it means those things that the court decisions have decided are unfair methods of competition, but I never thought that language, as used in the Federal Trade Commission act, did give them any definite standard or did allude to what the courts have decided were unfair methods of competition. I think it leaves it entirely to the whim of the members of the Federal Trade Commission to decide what, in their conscience, are unfair methods of competition. I know Senator Cummins does not agree with me about that.

Senator CUMMINS. I agree with you about your conclusion; of course I do not agree with you about the sufficiency of that term as a rule of action for the commission. But I agree that this section 4 in this bill will not reach the point at all; that is, it will not protect against the repeal of the antitrust law. I think we have got to find somewhere, we have got to preserve-that is, that has been my notion-preserve somewhere the principles of the antitrust law in export trade as well as in import trade; but I am very willing to meet the conditions that have been developed, so far as foreign competition is concerned.

Mr. CROWELL. There is only one thing further I wish to leave with you. The New York Chamber of Commerce is in favor of the principle of cooperation in the promotion of export trade. It has not entered into specific details, but stands back of this effort and wishes to convey to you its appreciation of the open-mindedness which you show in the effort to arrive at something that will really help the development of our foreign commerce.

Senator POINDEXTER. Let me ask you one question. Why is it not likewise important to extend that to the import trade, as far as the buying in foreign countries is concerned? If it is important to have an agreement for the purpose of selling to advantage in competition with foreign companies, who are combined, why does not the same principle apply to purchasing goods in foreign countries for importing?

Mr. CROWELL. It does, Senator. If you will take the suit of the Department of Justice v. The Valorization Coffee Syndicate, that was a case of import trade, if you will recall, and it not only seriously handicapped our trade in imports, but seriously jeopardized our trade relations with the Government of Brazil, involving 900,000 bags of coffee stored in New York warehouses.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Section 2 here provides that nothing in the Sherman law shall be construed as declaring to be illegal an association entered into for the sole purpose of engaging in export trade, or an agreement made or act done in the course of export trade by such associations in the foreign_trade, and to some of us that seems to be pretty broad language. I want to ask you as to the suggestion that was made by Senator Cummins this morning, whether it would be at all possible for you gentlemen, who are familiar with this foreign export business, to state specifically what kind of agreements or what acts to be done you desire to have validated. Would it be possible to make a list of them that would do any good, or are

they of such variegated character that it would be impossible to catalogue them in advance?

Mr. CROWELL. The list of agreements as we have them before us in history of trust organizations-I suppose those are the agreements you have in mind?

Senator BRANDEGEE. I have the agreements in mind here that you want validated. I do not know what they would be.

Mr. CROWELL. Anything short of monopoly, anything that has in it the logical and practical outcome of monopoly would be forbidden by the clause which I retain, "subject to the limitations therein forbidding monopoly." But if you go to treating with the phrase "restraint of trade," why all cooperation is restraint of trade, and it seems to me we ought to stay away from that. But if there is anything that inevitably involves in itself as an agreement the elements of monopoly, the substantial elements of monopoly, that is a forbidden agreement. That is what I mean. I do not know whether I answer your question or not.

Senator BRANDEGEE. I do not think so. I do not think it is a very important question, but my question is: Would it be possible, instead of preventing the declaration of any of these agreements or acts to be done as illegal, would it be possible to catalogue the acts that you do not want to be prosecuted for, and say it shall not be illegal to do this or do that in foreign trade, instead of simply referring to your whole future conduct as acts to be done?

Mr. CROWELL. It would be possible to this extent: To take instances of what have been regarded as forbidden acts, as monopolistic agreements to take such instances. I think we could do that. That could easily enough be done.

Senator BRANDEGEE. That would only be citing examples. That would not do in the law, would it?

Mr. CROWELL. You could not very well cite examples; you would have to cite principles.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you represent a committee of the New York Chamber of Commerce?

Mr. CROWELL. I represent the chamber of commerce as a body to submit the conclusions which it had reached in its deliberations of November 2, I think was the date, on the subject of cooperation in export trade. I have submitted two copies of those for the records. of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Do those conclusions cover the recommendations which you individually make as amendments?

Mr. CROWELL. No, sir; they do not. I make those in my individual capacity by way of suggestion in answer to questions that were brought out here. But the official record is in the printed document which I have submitted here.

The CHAIRMAN. Does that document suggest any particular amendments?

Mr. CROWELL. No, sir; it does not. When that document was under consideration section 2 was discussed, and there was such a difference developed in the judgment of different people on that matter that it seemed best not to make it a part of their official record.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Barba; state your residence and business.

STATEMENT OF MR. W. P. BARBA, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS' EXPORT ASSOCIATION, PHILADELPHIA, PA.

Mr. BARBA. I represent the American Manufacturers' Export Association. I have retired from all business. I represent no manufacturers or shippers other than this association, which is intended to do good to the whole line of commerce represented by the term "export trade," and I have been for years a member of that society.

I do not propose at this time to take very much of the committee's time but to be the vehicle of conveying to the committee an argument which, I think, should perhaps go into the record and which perhaps you will say is too long to read, and hence I have had it abstracted in three paragraphs.

I may say that the brief which we have compiled as the result of a committee appointed by the president of the association does attempt to suggest amendments and elisions from the bill, so that it will, in our judgment, be a good, fair working instrument which will give to exporters and manufacturers, in this country at least, some measure of value of weapons that we are constantly meeting in handling export trade at the present time and during the long past. Those weapons, I have no doubt, will be sharpened and multiplied in number in the coming years, and we are going to have a hard time under the very best of conditions.

The argument that our committee puts before your committee is merely a plea for the greatest degree of liberty in pursuing transactions abroad under heavy competition, together with the maximum degree of protection and safety which can be thrown around such transactions and prevent utterly any semblance or fact of monopolizing or of restraining or injuring in any way commerce within the possessions of the United States, both Territorial and insular. In other words, we want the greatest of liberty in foreign trade, with the maximum of protection in home trade. This argument, in brief, is this:

The Webb bill should be amended (1) To permit "associations to purchase within the United States, as well as sell, goods exported or in the course of being exported (sec. 1); (2) to legalize "associations" actually engaged solely in export trade and agreements made or acts done in the course of export trade, provided that such associations, agreements, or acts are not in restraint of trade within the United States (sec. 2); (3) to omit the arbitrary requirements for the filing of "all contracts, agreements, and understandings" by "associations" (sec. 5); and to leave this wholly to the discretion af the Federal Trade Commission under its powers conferred by section 6, subdivision (b), of the Federal Trade Commission act.

Expounding that last just a moment. I heard a Senator raise the question as to whether such acts could be catalogued or listed. They can as representing business that we know about to-day. They can not as representing any one of 20 business transactions, which might come to light to-morrow. And you will find that this argument suggests that the act, as it is proposed to be amended by this argument, be given a tentative trial, and that the Federal Trade Commission, by a section to be added to the bill, be instructed to watch its operations in detail and to make a definite report at a definite time. In