Senator AUSTIN. Mr. Green, I gather that the theory you are trying to present is that it would be better to have administered prices than to allow them to be fixed by the law of supply and demand? Mr. GREEN. No. I was not going into that Senator. I have my own opinion on that. What I am trying to do is to show the very great crying need at this time for Federal control of corporations, so that these things can be inquired into by the Federal Trade Commission, and these corporations will be more responsive then to the Federal Government, because they are licensed. Senator AUSTIN. Yes; but in that event, to follow through with your thought, you would have administered prices instead of prices based upon competition, would you not? Mr. GREEN. Not exactly. I think, however, that ruinous competition in any line, agricultural or otherwise, is destructive of our economic and social order. Senator O'MAHONEY. There is nothing in this bill, however, that has anything to do with prices. Mr. GREEN. There is nothing in this bill that has anything to do with prices. Senator NORRIS. My question, that excited some of these other questions, was only for the purpose of illustrating the point that you were endeavoring to make. Mr. GREEN. Correct. Senator NORRIS. But the facts are, and they were well illustrated by the example you gave, that the farmer is pretty nearly left out of consideration. Mr. GREEN. Yes. Senator NORRIS. Of course, regulation in regard to agricultural products is probably not involved in this bill. I suggested that merely as a side issue. Senator O'MAHONEY. It is an interesting suggestion. Senator KING. Mr. Green, you are not favoring, in any observations you have made or intend to make, a policy of Federal regimentation of the industries of our country, are you? Mr. GREEN. Oh, no. Senator KING. Or the fixing of prices of commodities or prices of labor by the Federal Government under a policy of regimentation? Mr. GREEN. No. I am not advocating that sort of economy. Senator KING. You do not want the economy that Mr. Mussolini and Mr. Hitler have imposed upon the people of Germany and Italy? Mr. GREEN. Certainly not. Senator KING. You are not favoring a policy to use the Federal Government for the purpose of correcting, if it needs correction, and probably it does, through various channels, the so-called maladministration of wealth? Mr. GREEN. No. That does not enter into this, as I understand it. It does not enter into the consideration of this measure. Senator KING. The reason I mention it is because I find in the outset of the bill a sort of declaration that it is necessary to bring about a better distribution of wealth, that there is a maldistribution of it now, and I wondered if you subscribed to that view. I wondered if you wanted to use the taxing power and regimenting power of the Government for the purpose of bringing about a redistribution of the resources and wealth of the country. Mr. GREEN. If you go into a discussion of that, Senator, I would want to say that there is not any question in my mind but what there should be a wider and more equitable distribution of the national income. Labor is satisfied that the national income is most inequitably distributed. Senator O'MAHONEY. Labor is pretty well satisfied that there has been going on a tremendous concentration of economic power and wealth in the hands of these corporations? Mr. GREEN. There is no question about it. Senator O'MAHONEY. It does not involve any policy of regimentation, or any of the practices of fascism or bolshevism, to use a current phrase, for the people of America to save themselves from this continued concentration? Mr. GREEN. If I saw anything like in the bill, I would be in opposition to it, but I do not. That is the reason why I am here in support of the measure, because I feel the total absence of either suggestion is found in this measure. Senator MCCARRAN. Mr. Green, I do not want to interrupt you during the course of your discussion, unless you wish to be interrupted, but I have one or two thoughts in mind upon which I would like to have your views. Mr. GREEN. I shall be glad to give them at any time. Senator MCCARRAN. Do you favor the entire elimination or destruction of corporate activities in this country? Mr. GREEN. Oh, no. Senator MCCARRAN. Very well. The power to license is the power to destroy, just as much as the power to tax is the power to destroy. Mr. GREEN. That power is inherent within the Government at any time, but it is inconceivable that a government would use that power to destroy. Senator NORRIS. It would not want to commit suicide. Mr. GREEN. No. Senator MCCARRAN. I am not discussing that phase of it, but this is a bill which, as I view it, leads to the interposition of human judgment as regards what is good or what is bad. Somebody is going to say whether the activities of a man or an artificial being are good or bad. Senator O'MAHONEY. Not under the terms of this bill, Senator. Senator MCCARRAN. I am not saying whether it is or not. That might depend upon the way in which it is construed. Senator O'MAHONEY. I just want to say if that is true, it is a matter of bad draftsmanship, and I shall take the blame for it. I shall be very glad to have any suggested amendments on that point. Senator MCCARRAN. I would not attribute anything like that to you, Senator, but I am trying to evolve the situation from a man who has studied this question for many years and for whose judgment I have a good deal of respect. As I understand you. Mr. Green, you are interested in the merits of the bill and would like to see it enacted into law, but not in a from that would be destructive of our great national industries. I want your view on it. Mr. GREEN. Certainly not. We cannot begin to assume that it is either the purpose or within the provisions of this bill to bring about a destruction of corporations or partnerships: but it is for the purpose of requiring corporations doing an interstate business to conform to certain standards set up for their regulation and their guidance, that seem to be reasonable requirements. Senator KING. By bureaucrats. Senator O'MAHONEY. No; by Congress. Senator MCCARRAN. I would like to have you consider this bill from the standpoint of putting into law by the National Congress those things that will inure to the best interests of the country, rather than putting into the hands of some individual or group of individuals delegated power conferred upon them by Congress. In other words, I think Congress delegates too much power to individuals to promulgate rules and regulations, some of them never published, many never becoming public at all, regulating the business of the country. If we can formulate a bill by which we will be responsible in any legislation for rules and regulations, then perhaps we will accomplish something. Mr. GREEN. Do you refer to the Federal Trade Commission? Senator MCCARRAN. I do not refer to it particularly. I mean power that may be delegated to any organization or commission or bureau. The Federal Trade Commission is referred to in the bill. Mr. GREEN. But Congress lays down the rules and establishes the standards with which the Federal Trade Commission must comply. Congress alone can determine that. Senator MCCARRAN. But we do not do it. We say the Commissions may formulate rules and regulations, and they set up rules and regulations that perhaps Congress never contemplated, and the people are complaining against them. That is what I am interested in. The policy of the bill appeals to me. Mr. GREEN. Yes. Senator MCCARRAN. But will we accomplish the very thing we are seeking to accomplish if we delegate power to some other body? Mr. GREEN. We ought to find some way to meet that objection. I know it is not the intention of those I represent to have Congress delegate power that should be retained by Congress to some other body, let it be legislative or administrative. Senator MCCARRAN. That brings me back to the question that you do not favor destroying corporate activities. Mr. GREEN. No. Senator MCCARRAN. I again come back to the fundamental principle, as I regard it, that the power to license is the power to destroy. It can say you can live or you cannot live. Mr. GREEN. On the other hand, Senator, which would be better for the protection of the people in this year 1937, to have the Federal Government license these corporations, or to continue to allow the States to do it? Senator MCCARRAN. If you want my individual opinion, I would say take it away from the States and put it in the hands of the Federal Government. But you have 48 separate sovereignties, each with the right to create these artificial persons, and you cannot very well take that right away. If I had my way, I would say they can not create these artificial persons, but the Federal Government alone can do it, going several steps further than this bill would go. But, in a way, it is not going much further. Suppose a number of corporations were formed under the law-I do not care whether they are in Nevada, whether they are in Delaware, or whether they are in Arizona-and then some Federal authority says: "You cannot exist, because we will not license you." That is the power to destroy. Mr. GREEN. It is not the power to destroy, but the power to regulate. Senator MCCARRAN. If you cut off a man's breath, he is destroyed. Senator O'MAHONEY. May I interrupt to say that, of course, it is perfectly true that the power to tax is the power to destroy, and I suppose the power to license would likewise be the power to destroy; but the question is whether either of those powers is ever fully exercised by government which always possesses them. I quite agree with Senator McCarran that they should not be exercised by any bureau or commission or Federal official. However, the Federal power was used shortly after the Civil War for the express purpose of destroying the currency of State banks, but it was used by direction of Congress, which is the law-making body. There is nothing in this bill which is intended to convey to the Federal Trade Commission the power to deny a license arbitrarily or capriciously. Mr. GREEN. No. Senator O'MAHONEY. In other words, a license under this bill will issue to a corporation engaged in commerce among the States in much the same form that a charter now issues to such corporation from the office of the secretary of state of the State in which it obtains its corporate rights. So that if we make this bill sufficiently flexible, we shall confine discretion to Congress to which it ought to be confined, as Senator McCarran says; in other words, to the full law-making power. The rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Federal Trade Commission will be solely with reference to administrative matters. Mr. GREEN. That is my impression. Senator NORRIS. Because we assume, which I think is correct, that the power to tax is the power to destroy; therefore, to prevent destruction, let us take away the power to tax. Mr. GREEN. That is unthinkable. Senator NORRIS. I think so.. Even though the power given might result in danger, I would not assume they are going to do that. Congress has had the power to destroy by taxation ever since the Government was formed. We may have made mistakes in ruinous taxation sometimes, but should we amend the Constitution and take that power away from the Government? Mr. GREEN. That is unthinkable. Senator KING. Would you want a measure passed to give the power to an organization or bureau to set down inflexible standards, applying alike to the conditions attending labor and production of commodities in, we may say, the State of Montana, with severe climatic conditions, and the State of Florida, where there is a more equable climate? In other words, do you believe there should be given to any organization such power to fix inflexible standards with a view to having the same wages, hours of labor, conditions of production, in one State as in any other? Mr. GREEN. Senator, that is not involved in this measure. I would be opposed to the delegation of power by Congress to a commission to arbitrarily fix standards for wages, hours, and conditions of employment. We are not going to that extreme. That is not embodied here. We are dealing with a bill that provides that the Federal Government may license corporations, and that corporations who are licensed must conform to certain standards. One is that the workers or employees must be accorded the right of collective bargaining. Senator KING. Everybody agrees with that. Mr. GREEN. Yes. It has become so much a part of our national economy that there should not be any question about it. The commission would not have discretionary power to modify that or to set up an inflexible rule. The bill sets forth what corporations will be required to do. As I see it, all the Federal Trade Commission could do would be to fix rules for administration and not substitute standards for those set by Congress. Senator KING. I will not take the time now to call attention to other provisions which I regard as rather unfair, but I find on page 15 of the bill, beginning with line 20, the following language: Whenever the Commission shall have reason to believe that any corporation within the purview of this act is not conforming to the conditions of fair competition above required— And the Commission has to determine what the conditions of fair competition are Senator O'MAHONEY. May I interrupt you for a moment? Senator KING. I doubt it. Senator O'MAHONEY. You said "the Commission is to determine. what the conditions of fair competition are." Senator KING. I was not reading that. That was an interpolation by me. Senator O'MAHONEY. That is what I want to correct. The Commission is not to determine what the conditions of fair competition are. The bill says "conditions of fair competition above required." Senator KING. It gives it the authority to determine. I continue: or shall have reason to believe that any article or commodity is being produced, manufactured, processed, or distributed to the retail trade by any person who is not licensed under this act, in such manner as to interfere with the effective handling of similar articles or commodities by any licensee, or in such manner as to give to the articles or commodities so produced, manufactured, processed, or distributed competitive advantages over similar articles or commodities handled by licensees, thereby tending to defeat the purposes of this act by impairing standards of employment and wages established for such licensees and so on. It seems to me there is a vast amount of discretion there. The Commission has the power to determine what are conditions of fair competition; it has the power to determine whether the articles produced are being produced, manufactured, and distributed to the retail trade in a manner as to interfere with the handling of similar articles. There is a vast amount of discretion there which it seems to me is in line with the suggestion of the Senator from Nevada. |