« PreviousContinue »
WORK LOAD STATEMBNT
ANTITRUST DIVISION (Page Two)
1 Including 6 cases not previously reported. 2/
Assn. of American Railroads vithout prejudice by stipulation because of Bulvinkle Act. 3/ Columbia da. • roller obtained by other means.
cement Institute 1ssues boot Sunbeam Corp. without prejudice by stipulation because of McGuire Act. Armour & Co. because of Court's cutoff date and lack of substantial evidence subsequent thereto, Government was compelled to diam188.
Western Penn. Sand & Gravel Assn., et al, Cr. 13855 (Sup. to Civ. 780) (civ. oide of case). Petition denied by Court as relief in prior judgment beld to be suficiently broad so as to cover additional relief sought.
Bowman Dairy Co., et al, Cr. 48CR360. Supreme Court affirmed dionissal of companion Civil case. Allled Stores Corps Cr. 18753 Marshall. Field & Co., Cr, 48755 ) Insufficient evidence to varrant trial. Rhodes Department Store, Cr, 48756 )
National City Lines Inc., et al., Civ., Consent, issue of relief litigated and rellet denied.
Civil: Darling; Employing Lathers; Wholesale Produce Buyers.
Criminal: Safeway Stores Inc., et al., Cr, dismissed simultaneously with the filing of an loformation
Associated Credit Bureaus; Employing Plasterers Ass'n., Employing Lathers Ass'n.
Sylvania Electric Products Corp., Cr, Guilty pleas and one defendant tried and found not guilty.
Criminal: Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers A88'o., Inc.
Criminal: Woll; Aero Mayflower Transit; R. Potts; and Maine Lobster Co. dismissed simultaneously vith Piling information.
8) 9/ 10 11/
Civil; Liden Service Council of New Jersey; Guerlain Parfums Corday, Inc. & Lanvin Parfums.
Maryland State Licensed Beverage - 38 Nolo Pleas, 12 Dismissed & 3 Acquitted after trial. Socony cases certified by CCA to Sup. Ct, and then dismissed by Government. Parfums Corday dismissed by Government. Standard 011 Co. of Obio.
1 Adjusted to include vergoro. 3) 12 lovestigations closed out resulted 10 85 cases, civil and criminal
REQUESTED INCREASE FOR 1962
Mr. Rooney. This request is in the amount of $5.5 million, an increase of $740,000 over the amount appropriated to date for the current fiscal year. It is an increase of $426,000 when anticipated pay act supplementals are taken into consideration.
We have with us this morning the Assistant Attorney General Designate, Judge Lee Loevinger, who is the new head of the Antitrust Division.
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF MR. L. LOEVINGER
Since you are appearing for the first time before the committee, Judge Loevinger, it might be well if you give us a brief biographical sketch.
Mr. LOEVINGER. Yes, sir. I was born_April 24, 1913, in St. Paul, Minn. I attended public schools in St. Paul. I attended University High School in Minneapolis and the University of Minnesota and graduated in 1933 with a bachelor of arts degree, summa cum laude, 1936 with the degree of bachelor of laws.
I worked for about a year and a half with the firm of Watson, Ess, Groner, Barnett & Whittaker in Kansas City.
I was admitted to the bar of Missouri and then worked for the Labor Relations Board. I believe in 1941, I went to work for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and worked there until 1946, although during that time I was on active duty part of the time with the U.S. Navy during World War II.
In 1946, I resigned and went back to Minneapolis where I formed a law partnership with two friends; originally the firm was known as Larson, Loevinger & Lindquist and later known as Larson, Loevinger, Lindquist & Fraser.
In 1960, I was appointed to the Supreme Court of Minnesota by Governor Freeman. As of now I am still a member of the Minnesota Supreme Court and it is my anticipation that, when nominated and confirmed, as head of the Antitrust Division, I will resign from the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Mr. ROONEY. Judge Loevinger, we all wish you the very best of luck in your new and important duties.
It seems to me and I am being utterly nonpartisan about this, that you have a mark to shoot at because your predecessor, Mr. Bicks, was highly successful in the administration of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. He is entitled to great credit for his accomplishments and they will always be to his credit in the years to come.
NATURE OF REQUESTED INCREASE Of this requested $426,000 it appears that $44,700 is for statutory provisions; to wit, within-grade promotions under the Ramspeck Act, and retirement fund contributions.
It seems that there are requested 21 attorneys, 5 economists, and 10 clerks, as well as $40,000 a year rent for these 36 people.
Mr. LOEVINGER. I believe that is a transfer item, Congressman.
Mr. ROONEY. We understand what it is. We have been discussing this in connection with each previous item.
Mr. LOEVINGER. I am sorry.
Mr. LOEVINGER. I am not quite sure what you would like to have from me, sir. I have been here only a week, in which time I have attempted to familiarize myself with the operations of the Division. I have had some previous contact with the antitrust laws and believe that I have some knowledge of the substantive law, but the administrative problems of the Division are quite different.
Mr. Rooney. Perhaps Mr. Kirkpatrick or Mr. Bassford will address themselves to this budget.
Mr. KIRKPATRICK. I would be glad to, Mr. Congressman.
I would point out a few of the things that occurred during the last fiscal year in the Division and let them point out for us why we think we need some additional personnel.
In fiscal year 1960 we instituted 86 cases. This was more than the number filed in any year since 1942. In that fiscal year some 1,250 mergers were examined and 146 mergers were fully investigated. That was an increase from prior years.
In 1960, there was a great increase in our activity against illegal price fixing. That was most significantly revealed, I think, by the series of electrical cases in Philadelphia. Starting in February 1960 and from then until the end of fiscal 1960, 18 indictments and 17 complaints were filed charging illegal price fixing in some branch of the heavy electrical industry.
Since the end of that fiscal year, there have been four additional cases filed. In the series of cases involving some 27 corporations, and I believe 43 individuals, the entire series of criminal cases has been disposed of. Final sentencing was just last month and the total fines imposed by the court on the corporations and individuals were just short of $2 million.
The court imposed a number of jail sentences and seven of them are presently actually being served.
Mr. Rooney. That is in the current calendar year!
Most of the cases were filed in fiscal 1960 and determinations were in the present year.
Mr. ROONEY. Where do we find the list of jail sentences in these justifications ?
Mr. KIRKPATRICK. As far as the Philadelphia cases go, I would like to submit
Mr. Rooney. That is in the current fiscal year. I am talking about fiscal 1960.
Mr. KIRKPATRICK. The only jail sentences-
Mr. KIRKPATRICK. The McDonough case was a price-fixing case in hand tools. There were five companies and four individuals
charged with conspiring to fix prices.
Mr. ROONEY. In fiscal 1960, what was the total in fines? Is that the figure shown on page 20–38?
Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Yes, sir; $1,087,750.
INCREASE IN STAFF
Mr. Rooney. You have how many lawyers and nonprofessional people in the Antitrust Division at the present time?
Mr. KIRKPATRICK. As of the present time there are in the Division 263 professionals and 239 others.
Mr. ROONEY. 502 people and now you want to add 36 more?
Mr. ROONEY. These requested increases in equipment, supplies, materials, printing and reproduction, communications services, are they all contingent upon the allowance of 36 new employees?
Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Yes, sir.
Mr. ROONEY. In other words, the lump sum of $381,300 would be the cost of adding these 36 people to the payroll ?
Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. ROONEY. The proposed budget for 1962, insofar as the Antitrust Division is concerned, was first drawn up in the Division itself, was it?
Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rooney. What was the amount requested by Mr. Bicks of the Attorney General, Mr. Rogers?
Mr. KIRKPATRICK. It is my recollection it was this figure.
Mr. Rooney. When you say "all the way through” is that the same figure requested of the Attorney General and that the Attorney General then requested of the Bureau of the Budget, the same figure, $126,000?
Mr. ANDRETTA. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rooney. When I say $426,000, I mean an increase of $426,000, the total amount being $5.5 million.
Thank you very much, Judge Loevinger.