Committee on Interstate Commerce.1 The next day this committee reported the bill to the House without amendment, accompanied by a report (no. 533). The committee in its report stated that the bill provided for a trade commission in accordance with the views of the President as expressed in his message to Congress. The bill was framed on the principle of preserving competitive conditions in interstate commerce; the commission had not been given power to make terms with monopoly, to regulate prices or production, to declare any particular corporation or agreement innocuous, or to issue orders. The report was concurred in by all the Democratic members of the committee except two who did not believe the bill was sufficiently drastic, and by all the Republican members of the committee; in fact the preparation of the bill and its course through Congress were marked by a comparative absence of political considerations, the Republicans coöperating with the Democrats to effect its passage. In part this fortunate state of affairs was due to the widespread demand for the establishment of a commission-the poll conducted by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States was eloquent testimony as to the strength of this demand-and in part it was due to the skill and courtesy of Representative Covington, who carefully avoided stirring up antagonisms or factional differences. On May 19 debate on the bill began in the House. Amended in only one particular (and that a minor one), the bill passed the House on June 5, 1914.3 The vote on the measure was not recorded, but that the opposition to its passage was slight is attested by the fact that a motion to recommit the bill, offered by Representative Murdock of Kansas (a Progressive), was defeated by a vote of 151 to 19.4 (Not all of the nineteen, however, were to be regarded as hostile to the measure, for Mr. Murdock himself stated that he was not opposed to the passage of the bill.) The House bill was referred by the Senate to the Committee on Interstate Commerce; and on June 13 was reported from the 1 Cong. Record, April 13, 1914, p. 6648. 2 Ibid., April 14, 1914, p. 6714. * Ibid., June 5, 1914, p. 9910. 4 Ibid. committee. The action of the committee consisted in striking out all of the House bill except the enacting clause, and substituting therefor the provisions of the Senate bill (S. 4160), with the addition of several sections dealing with unfair competition and foreign trade practices. On June 25 the Senate took up the consideration of this bill. Debate upon it occupied a large share of the Senate's attention during the month that followed, the principal bone of contention being the unfair competition provisions which had been added to the bill by the Senate Committee. On July 22 the Democratic members of the Senate at a caucus agreed that the bill should be kept constantly before the Senate until its final disposition.1 Finally on August 4 a unanimous consent agreement was entered into that the Senate would vote on the bill not later than August 5.2 On that day the bill, amended in many particulars, passed the Senate by a vote of 53 to 16, 27 not voting. Only two Democrats voted against the bill (though quite a number were absent) and twelve Republicans voted for it. 3 The House disagreeing to the amendments of the Senate, a conference became necessary. The conference committee labored over the bill for nearly a month, endeavoring to agree upon a measure that would include the fundamental provisions of both bills. On September 4 the result of their labors was presented to the Senate and to the House. The conference report was agreed to in the Senate on September 8 by a vote of 43-5,4 the main features of the debate being the exceeding difficulty experienced in maintaining a quorum. The conference report was taken up in the House on the 10th. Representative Mann of Illinois, the leader of the opposition, expressed the prevailing sentiment when he said that the discussion on the bill had been devoid of partisan politics from the start, and that it was a good bill.5 The House on the roth agreed to the conference re 1 Chron., 99, p. 238 (July 25, 1914). 2 Cong. Record, August 4, 1914, p. 13235. 3 Ibid., August 5, 1914, p. 13319. 4 Ibid., September 8, 1914, p. 14802. 5 Ibid., September 10, 1914, p. 14940. port.1 Nothing now remained but the signature of the President; and this was affixed on September 26, 1914. The second of the trust measures-the Clayton bill (H. R. 15657)—was introduced in the House on April 14.2 Of the three tentative bills before the Committee on the Judiciary one (the Definitions bill) had been dropped, and the other two had been consolidated. A Definitions bill had been urged by President Wilson in his message to Congress, but the objection was raised that a specific enumeration of offenses under the act might limit the scope of the anti-trust acts. The Attorney General, for example, expressed the opinion that a legislative definition of offenses might weaken the act. Moreover, it was certain that it would be years before the various offenses defined in the bill would receive judicial interpretation. Apparently the President became convinced of the force of these objections; and as a result the Definitions bill was dropped. The remaining bills (the Interlocking Directorates bill and the Trade Relations bill), with some new matter, were consolidated into one, the Clayton bill. As one commentator has put it, two separate measures were better targets for criticism than a single bill, and at the same time they did not afford as good a rallying-ground for those who were willing to support the administration. The Clayton bill was referred by the House to the Committee on the Judiciary. On May 6 the bill was reported from the committee with an amendment, accompanied by a report (no. 627).4 Debate on the bill began on May 22. It occupied the attention of the House until June 5, when it was passed with its amendments by a vote of 277 to 54.5 Only one Democrat voted against it, while fortythree Republicans and sixteen Progressives voted for it.6 In spite of the charge made against the bill that it was conceived in a spirit of partisanship in marked contrast to the Trade Commis 1 Cong. Record, September 10, 1914, p. 14933. 2 Ibid., April 14, 1914, p. 6714. 3 Young, Journal of Political Economy, 23, p. 320. 4 Cong. Record, May 6, 1914, p. 8201. 5 Ibid., June 5, 1914, p. 9911. Chron., 98, p. 1814 (June 13, 1914). 3 sion bill, it received the support of a large number of Republicans and Progressives. The Clayton bill was presented to the Senate, and on June 6 referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On the 22nd of July it was reported out with amendments and with a report (no. 698).2 Consideration of the bill by the Senate in Committee of the Whole was begun on August 11; and for the next three weeks the Senate concentrated its attention upon it. On September 2 the measure, amended in many vital particulars, passed the Senate by a vote of 46-16.3 The forty-six votes for the measure were cast by thirty-eight Democrats, seven Republicans, and one Progressive. The sixteen votes in opposition were all cast by Republicans. The amendments to the House bill made by the Senate were numerous and far-reaching, and a conference was therefore necessary. The report of the conference committee was presented to the Senate on September 23, read on September 26, and taken up for debate on September 28. Vigorous objection to the report was made, particularly by Senator Reed of Missouri, who held that the teeth had been removed from the bill, his principal objection being the failure of the conferees to retain the criminal penalties provided for by the House. In order to effect the restoration of the criminal penalties, he made a motion on October 5 to recommit the bill to conference. This was defeated by a vote of 35-25. The Senate thereupon by a vote of 35–24 agreed to the conference report.5 On October 7 the report was taken up in the House, and the next day the report was agreed to by a vote of 245-52.6 The signature of the President was affixed on October 15, 1914, thus bringing to a conclusion the anti-trust legislation of the year. THE TRADE COMMISSION ACT In describing the provisions of the Trade Commission Act we shall take up, first, the organization of the Commission; 1 Cong. Record, June 6, 1914, p. 9929. 4 Ibid., October 5, 1914, p. 16170. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid., October 8, 1914, p. 16344. second, its principal powers and duties; and third, some miscellaneous provisions. Organization of the Commission The act provided for the creation of a Federal Trade Commission of five members to be appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The salary of each member was fixed at $10,000 a year; and the term of office at seven years, except for the first appointees, who were to serve for three, four, five, six, and seven years, and except for appointments to fill vacancies, in which case the unexpired term was to be filled out. Not more than three of the five commissioners might be of the same political party. No commissioner might engage in any other business, vocation, or employment. The commissioners might be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. Upon the organization of the Commission and the election of its chairman, the Bureau of Corporations and the offices of the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Corporations were to cease to exist; but the Commission was to continue all the pending investigations and proceedings of the Bureau, to retain all the clerks and employees of the Bureau at their former grades and salaries, and to take possession of all the records, papers, and property of the Bureau, including any unexpended funds. The Commission was to appoint a secretary at a salary of $5,000 a year, and to have authority to employ and fix the compensation of such attorneys, special experts, examiners, clerks, and other employees as it might from time to time find necessary, and for whom Congress might from time to time make appropriation. With the exception of the secretary, a clerk to each commissioner, the attorneys, and the special experts and examiners, all employees of the commission were to be a part of the classified civil service. Powers and Duties of the Commission The principal powers of the Commission may be classified |