Argument for Respondent.

298 U.S.

of § 5 in issue in the present case are another instance of the exercise of the established power of Congress to close the mails to matter which it deemed contrary to the public welfare, and are thus amply sustained by these cases. Congress may exclude securities which themselves contain misstatements. Congress may also exclude such securities if they are an integral part of a scheme to defraud. Further, Congress may require registration of all securities since this is reasonably necessary to make effective the exercise of its regulatory power. Finally, that the Act will not bar from the mails all harmful securities is no objection to its validity; Congress may certainly limit the exercise of its power to the particular type of evil here involved, namely, the failure to disclose the true character of securities.

Petitioner contends that § 5 (a) of the Act conflicts. with the Tenth Amendment. This Court has, however, several times pointed out that Congress need not have power to deal with crime or immorality within the States in order to forbid the use of the mails in furthering such activities. Nor does the Act, as petitioner contends, apply to persons rather than to objects mailed, although even if it be so construed, its constitutionality is clearly sustained by previous decisions of this Court. Petitioner's final contention that a requirement of registration violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment is unsound, for such a requirement in state securities acts has frequently been sustained by this Court, and a substantially similar requirement was upheld in connection with the power of Congress to classify mailable matter.

In support of its contention that the registration provisions of the Securities Act are a valid exercise of the commerce power of Congress, respondent submits that (1) securities are subjects of commerce, and (2) a prohibition against the interstate transportation of unregistered securities is within the regulatory power of Congress.

Securities are "subjects of commerce" not only because they are so treated by ordinary business usage and state legislation, but also because they comply with the applicable legal standards formulated in the Lottery Case, 188 U. S. 321, and the insurance cases. Cf. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Deer Lodge County, 231 U. S. 495, 508; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 183; International Textbook Co. v. Pigg, 217 U. S. 91. If they are transported across state lines without being truthfully described they may injure persons in the State of destination.

The prevention of the spread of evil across state lines and the prohibition against the use of the facilities of interstate commerce as an agency to promote dishonesty are shown by prior decisions to be within the scope of congressional regulatory power. Lottery Case, 188 U. S. 321; Hipolite Egg Co. v. United States, 220 U. S. 45; Brooks v. United States, 267 U. S. 42; Caminetti v. United States, 242 U. S. 470. Since in the Securities Act the regulatory power has been used merely to require a disclosure of the character of subjects carried and not to affect their local production, the Act does not fall within the prohibition of the Tenth Amendment nor of Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251. The particular form of securities regulation involved in registration has already been held to afford due process in the substantially similar field of state Blue Sky legislation. See Caldwell v. Sioux Falls Stock Yards Co., 242 U. S. 559; Merrick v. Halsey & Co., 242 U. S. 568; cf. Hall v. Geiger-Jones, 242 U.S. 539.

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case arises under "The Securities Act of 1933," c. 38, 48 Stat. 74, U. S. C. Title 15, § 77a et seq., as amended by act of June 6, 1934, c. 404, 48 Stat. 881. Prior to the

Opinion of the Court.

298 U.S.

amendment, the act was administered by the Federal Trade Commission; but by § 210, 48 Stat. 908, the administration was transferred to the respondent.

The act, § 2 (4), defines the term "issuer" as including every person who issues or proposes to issue any security, with certain exceptions. Section 6 (a) of the act provides "Any security may be registered with the Commission under the terms and conditions hereinafter provided, by filing a registration statement in triplicate, at least one of which shall be signed by each issuer . . .' The filing of the registration statement must be accompanied by the payment to the commission of a fee measured by the maximum aggregate price at which the securities are to be offered. The information contained in the statement is to be made available to the public under such regulations as the commission may prescribe. The act prescribes in detail the character of information which is to be set out in the statement. Elaborate provisions are made in respect of liability on account of false registration statements, etc., and penalties are imposed for willful violations of any of the provisions of the act, or the rules and regulations promulgated by the commission under authority thereof, and for willfully untrue statements of material facts or omissions to state material facts. Section 5 (a) provides that unless a registration statement is in effect as to a security, it shall be unlawful for any person directly or indirectly to make use of the instrumentalities of interstate commerce or of the mails to sell or offer to buy such security, etc., or to transport any such security for sale or for delivery after sale.

"Sec. 8 (a) The effective date of a registration statement shall be the twentieth day after the filing thereof, except as hereinafter provided,

"(d) If it appears to the Commission at any time that the registration statement includes any untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state any material fact

1

Opinion of the Court.

required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, the Commission may, after notice by personal service or the sending of confirmed telegraphic notice, and after opportunity for hearing (at a time fixed by the Commission) within fifteen days after such notice by personal service or the sending of such telegraphic notice, issue a stop order suspending the effectiveness of the registration statement.

"(e) The Commission is hereby empowered to make an examination in any case in order to determine whether a stop order should issue under subsection (d). In making such examination the Commission or any officer or officers designated by it shall have access to and may demand the production of any books and papers of, and may administer oaths and affirmations to and examine, the issuer, underwriter, or any other person, in respect of any matter relevant to the examination, and may, in its discretion, require the production of a balance sheet exhibiting the assets and liabilities of the issuer, or its income statement, or both, to be certified to by a public or certified accountant approved by the Commission. If the issuer or underwriter shall fail to coöperate, or shall obstruct or refuse to permit the making of an examination, such conduct shall be proper ground for the issuance of a stop order."

Section 19 (b) provides that for the purpose of all investigations which the commission think necessary and proper for the enforcement of the act, any member of the commission or any designated officer may administer oaths and affirmations, subpoena witnesses, take evidence, and require the production of books, papers, etc. Section 22 (b) provides that in case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpoena issued [by authority of the commission] to any person, the district courts of the United States and others named, upon application by the commission, may issue to such person an order requiring him to appear

Opinion of the Court.

298 U.S.

before the commission or one of its examiners, and there produce documentary evidence and give evidence touching the matter in question.

May 4, 1935, petitioner filed with the commission a registration statement in pursuance of § 6 (a) of the act, covering a proposed issue of participation trust certificates. This registration statement under the terms of the act was to become effective 20 days later. On the 19th day, however, the commission, having already directed that stop-order proceedings be instituted, pursuant to § 8 (d), sent petitioner a telegraphic notice reciting that the registration statement appeared to contain untrue statements of material facts and to omit material facts required and necessary and fixing a hearing at the office of the commission for Thursday, June 6, 1935, "at which time and place registrant may appear and show cause why a stop order should not be issued suspending the effectiveness of such registration statement." The hearing was postponed until June 18th.

On June 13, a subpoena duces tecum was issued commanding petitioner to appear before an officer of the commission on the 18th to testify with respect to his registration statement and to bring with him designated books, records and papers, listed as follows: "General ledger, subsidiary ledgers, journal, cash book, books of account and financial statements of J. Edward Jones; general ledger, journal, cash book and books of account of J. Edward Jones relating to J. Edward Jones Royalty Trust, Series 'M'; all contracts, agreements and correspondence of J. Edward Jones relating to the distribution of Participation Trust Certificates in J. Edward Jones Royalty Trust, Series 'M'; all correspondence and communications of J. Edward Jones with any State authority relating to the distribution of Participation Trust Certificates in J. Edward Jones Royalty Trust, Series 'M.'"