"should remove deterrents from the laws regulating the issuance of private securities," without diminishing essential safeguards for investors. The deterrents are not specified. However, the principal one seems to be what the chamber regards as excessive authority delegated by Congress to agencies.

This viewpoint extends to the entire field of Government-business relations. Congress, it says, should take away the opportunity for administrative agencies to impose theories and restrictions of their own. To this end

all statutes, State or Federal, dealing with the supervision or regulation of financial institutions and similar fields of business should define the powers given to the supervisory authority

and in particular

should be specific about the place where management's responsibility ends and the supervisor's begins."

Special opposition is registered to—

the enactment of further Federal legislation based upon the formula of an administrative agency possessing broad discretionary authority to issue rules and regulations, and in addition possessing the powers of investigator, prosecutor, and judge.

Wherever this formula exists in present legislation

the chamber asserts

there should be reexamination and such a recasting of provisions as to adminis trative authority as will preserve to citizens both the substance and the form of their rights.10

If Congress were to follow such a course, according to the chamber, Government revenues would be raised and tax burdens lessened; the number of public employees could be reduced. Moreover, it would permit Government reorganization to improve service and decrease cost. It would make possible the earlier balancing of the Budget and reduction of the national debt.

So important in Government-business relations is this "intolerable" union of legislative, executive, and judicial functions in "many" Federal agencies that the chamber of commerce singles it out for special reference. An "appropriate test of the exercise of legislative functions by these agencies" would be provided by the Walter-Logan bill (H. R. 6324, 76th Cong.) approved by the House April 18, 1940, and by the Senate on November 26, 1940.1

Congress should also refuse to consider "proposals having for their object the control of industries by Government agencies." 12 Specifically, the chamber "unalterably" opposes the imposition of codes controlling production in private enterprise by Federal administrative or executive authority.13 On the contrary, "invention and research should

Policies Advocated by the Chamber of Commerce of the U. S., op. cit., p. 5. 10 Ibid.

11 Ibid., p. 6.

This legislation is discussed further on pp. 191-194.

12 Ibid., p. 7. 13 Ibid., p. 6. Instead of control of production by Government the chamber has advocated control by trade associations under Government supervision. In 1936 the chamber believed the anti-trust laws should be modified so as to "permit agreements increasing the possibilities of keeping production related to consumption." Each industry should then be permitted to formulate and put into effect rules of fair competition. When formulated by a clearly preponderant part of an industry such rules "should be enforceable against all concerns in the industry." In this process the role of the Government would be supervisory. It would be limited (1) to indicating to businesses desiring to combine whether the proposed combination is illegal; (2) calling attention to agreements which are not in the public interest in stabilization of business operation and employment, in

be encouraged," and "no obstacles should be placed in the way of the most intensive utilization of the results of invention and scientific discovery." The patent system "should be maintained without impairment, including freedom of patentees to grant licenses restricted as to

The existing antitrust laws are thought to be adequate, and additional civil remedies are opposed. Such rights as these laws contain "to permit reasonable arrangements" [unspecified] should be preserved. Trade associations should be supported and encouraged, particularly in continuing the development of "methods of cost-finding designed to aid each member of the industry in determining its own true costs." Also, there should be added opportunities for each enterprise

to test the elements of its costs, and the methods of determining them, by checking with the costs of the rest of the industry. There should also be available to the members of the industry and to the public information about the operations of the industry as to volume of output, stocks, and markets.15

The Federal Trade Commission should not be given "authority as to acquisition of assets by corporations."

"Proposals for Federal licensing of State-chartered corporations as a condition to their engaging in interstate commerce * should be opposed." The Temporary National Economic Committee would "best promote the public interest by devoting its attention to the antitrust laws in aspects in which they may be improved." Its allegedly "ex parte presentations so far used" should be replaced by "a procedure better adapted to establish the facts upon which any recommendations for legislation should be based." 16

The chamber continues to advocate as fundamental principles legislation and enforcement of legislation against unfair competition,

and

condemns every expression [not further specified] that falsely represents existing conditions of competition as calculated to cause confusion and to obscure the true causes [not further specified] of decline in business activity and decrease in employment.

That these causes of business repression [not further specified] should be removed, and that fair competition may be promoted, businessmen should have means [not further specified] for ascertaining clearly the courses which, without being unethical or morally reprehensible, are contrary to a definite policy laid down in law, and have means for protecting themselves properly from the consequences of departures by others."

Businessmen themselves should carry "most of the burden" of "policing of competition," and "new legislation should be clearly limited to businesses engaged in, or directly affecting competition in, interstate commerce. The chamber urges the Federal Trade Commis

sion

to concentrate its attention and energies upon the elimination of trade practices which are unfair and which are detrimental to the public interest.

The trade practice conference procedure is endorsed.18

order that they "may be nullified"; and (3) approving or vetoing the rules of fair competition drawn up by members of an industry, with power to indicate conditions of approval, but without power to modify or impose such rules on the members. In this scheme of industrial self-government the trade association plays the dominant role. 14 Ibid., p. 4.

15 Ibid., pp. 9-10.

16 Ibid., p. 7.

17 Ibid., pp. 8-9.

18 Ibid., p. 8.

"Sellers in every field are entitled to have the applications of the [Robinson-Patman] statute made plain." But "any attempt through legislation or otherwise, to prohibit selling at delivered prices should be opposed." Retail merchandising, in its legitimate forms, should be free from discriminatory laws. Government competition is "destructive and should be ended." "The Government should refrain from entering any field of business which can successfully be conducted by private enterprise." 19

Instead of a Federal compulsory law to give workers social security, the chamber has advocated voluntary measures. It urges correction of certain unspecified burdens upon savings and life insurance. The Social Security Act's provisions for old-age insurance and assistance should be carefully watched, particularly from the cost angle. The employer's burden of providing unemployment benefits should be lightened. Federal grants in aid for improving local health facilities are opposed.20

Many of the stands taken on public problems by the Chamber of Commerce are not clear. This cannot be said, however, of its position regarding the place of the judiciary in our governmental system. The judiciary should be kept independent of the other branches of gov ernment. The chamber is opposed to any "influence" by Congress or the Executive which would change the size of the Supreme Court, minimize its power, diminish its jurisdiction, or limit its methods of decision.21

Industrial relations.—In the controversial field of industrial relations the Chamber of Commerce stands for a system in which employers and employees act in response to "the free play of economic forces," and Government activity is limited to "the protection of the rights arising from employment relations in production and distribution." Such governmental action, however, is not proper for the Federal Government but is "within the province of the State." 22 In 1936 the chamber argued that regulation of hours of labor by law is contrary not only to business principles but also to wise public policy; in 1940 they asked for the repeal of the wage-hour law "for the benefit of employers, employees, and the general public."

These views on industrial relations reflect certain basic beliefs. The Chamber of Commerce holds that the interests of employers and of employees are "mutual." Preferably, the Labor Relations Act should be wholly withdrawn; if it is not, mutuality of obligations and responsibilities should be written into it. In discussing the responsibility of the worker the chamber in 1936 argued that he should "refrain from the arbitrary imposition of any terms and conditions of employment" which would "tend to impair or destroy the inherently mutual interests of both employers and employees." All employer"All employee relationships, it was maintained, should promote the recognition of these mutual interests and "should be so conducted as to make this recognition effective."

Flowing from this belief is the further principle of freedom of discussion and of negotiation in determining conditions of employment and work. In these matters both laborers and employers should have "full freedom." Furthermore, this freedom may be used "either

through individual negotiation or through representatives of their own selection." On examination, this apparently equal power of negotiation emerges as heavily weighted in the employer's favor, as is also the case in analysis of the chamber's attitude toward outside coercion and restraint: "Employees in exercising their rights should not be exposed to coercion from any source." "Through use of majority rule the National Labor Relations Act now denies to minority employees freedom to select their own representatives for collective bargaining. An amendment should make it explicit that an employer is required to bargain with any labor organization only as representative of employees who are its own members." Likewise, when negotiations are being conducted through representatives "it is proper that either side be permitted to object to any representatives of the other that are chosen or controlled by any outside group or interest in the questions at issue." In these terms does the chamber define its position on collective bargaining.23

By these statements, as well as explicitly, the Chamber of Commerce advocates the "open shop." By this phrase is meant "employment without regard to membership or nonmembership in any organization of lawful purpose." In other words, union membership is not necessary for employment. By the open shop is also meant what the chamber refers to as

freedom of individuals, or groups of employees, in their employment relations from domination by a majority or any other part of their fellow-workers or workers in other establishments."

Thus the chamber sets its face against the local shop union organized on a craft basis, against majority rule in the negotiation of wage contracts, and against negotiations by union organizers and union officials, as well as against the organization of workers into industrial unions for purposes of collective bargaining.

There has been no relaxation of the chamber's attitude toward industrial relations since 1936. In fact, experience under the National Labor Relations Act has intensified it. It urges outright repeal, but short of that it wants the act amended to conform to its general statement of beliefs. Specifically, among the amendments recommended by the Smith investigating committee 25 was a provision for a new board with judicial functions only, a recommendation already favorably acted upon by the House.

Additional drastic amendments are advocated by the chamber. Every form of coercion and intimidation of employees should be outlawed. To the act should be added definitions and prohibitions of unfair labor practices on the part of employees, their representatives, and any persons acting for labor organizations. The act's protection should be withdrawn from employees while in violation of agreements arrived at through collective bargaining. Employers should have the express right to petition the Board for an election. The law's sanction of the closed shop should be removed. An amendment should be passed laying down standards indicating the extent to which an employer is to be engaged in interstate commerce before becoming subject to the Board's jurisdiction. Moreover, legislation should be adopted curbing the right of employees' representatives outside the

Policies Advocated by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, op. cit., pp. 24 Ibid., p. 13.

10-11.

H. Rept. No. 1902, pts. 1 and 2, 76th Cong., 3d sess.

employees themselves to call strikes, outlawing strikes to promote collective bargaining, establishing responsibility for the acts of labor organizations, and forbidding employees' organizations to make political contributions. Any attempt to provide double penalties in connection with the Labor Relations Act should be opposed, as well as attempts to extend the act to recipients of Government contracts and those dealing with Government instrumentalities. All of the Labor Relations Board's findings and decisions should be subject to judicial review. And the right to picketing should be limited to giving information.26

Taxation and expenditures.-The Chamber of Commerce approaches fiscal problems with the assumption that taxes are too high and cannot be raised further, and that, therefore, expenditures must be cut if annual deficits are to be stopped. All its specific observations fit into this general framework. The statutory limit of the Federal debt should not be raised. A mere appropriation of money is no justification for making expenditures under that appropriation. Congress should direct the President to designate in the budget which activities he feels should be discontinued; to reduce expenditures of the executive branch below appropriations if necessary to prevent a deficit; and to disapprove individual items in appropriation bills. Since the demand for Federal funds for the benefit of States and communities is an important factor in excessive Federal expenditures, businessmen's organizations should refrain from requesting Federal funds for local or specialized purposes and should use their influence to dissuade local and State authorities from asking or accepting such funds. Moreover, Congress should reestablish and maintain its control over fiscal affairs by providing a body of its own to consider the budget as a whole, and propose to Congress a total within which revenues and expenditures should be kept. Stating its belief that "financial preparedness is just as necessary as military preparedness," and that "we should carry our defense on a pay-as-we-go-basis," the Chamber of Commerce holds that "positive steps" toward placing the fiscal affairs of the Federal Government on an orderly basis constitutes "one of the most essential preparations for national defense.”

The revenue side of the Federal Budget also needs revamping, in the opinion of the Chamber of Commerce. Use of the Federal tax power to compel conformity to social or economic readjustment is "contrary to sound public policy." The corporate income tax should be applied at a flat rate, irrespective of size. Capital-stock and excess-profits taxes should be repealed. Reorganization of corporate structures undertaken for business purposes should not be subject to tax. Income tax returns should not be made public, and estate and inheritance taxes, both Federal and State, should be revised, along

26 In addition, in the chamber's opinion, all persons should be subject to State laws against breaches of the public peace; protection of personal rights should be maintained against all unlawful interference; organizations of employers and of employees, negotiating labor agreements, should be registered; strikes and lock-outs against Government should be placed "beyond the possibility of occurrence"; and the laws of the States should be extended to include provisions directed specifically against concerted action, whether or not accompanied by disorder, directed by individuals, groups, or organizations, to bring any degree of coercion through economic channels upon the public or upon public authori ties. Settlement of all employment disputes with public utilities should be through arbitration.

27 The material in this section is taken from pp. 17-24 of the 1940 statement of policies. For a further account of taxation and business policy see T. N. E. C. Monograph No. 20, Taxation, Recovery, and Defense, by Dewey Anderson.