TABLE IV.-Detail of loan authorizations to companies in the iron and steel industry through June 30, 1940-Continued Southern Pipe & Casing Co., Electric welded steel pipe.. $50,000 November 1935. To assist company in acquiring and moving to more suitable quarters. For working capital and repairs to For working capital. 150,000 May 1938. do. Deferred participation; bank's share Direct loan; amount shown represents Direct loan; repaid in full in July, 1940. To pay delinquent taxes and for work- Direct loan; no disbursements made; ing capital. To assist in reorganization through For working capital. Direct loan; repaid in full in May 1941 Deferred participation; bank's share $100,000; repaid in full in November 1939. To refund mortgage and for working Direct loan; repaid in full in November capital. For working capital.. 1937. Direct loan; $800,000 disbursed, balance Wheatland Tube Co., Philadel- Wickwire Spencer Steel Co., Butt weld steel pipe.. Pig iron, plain and galva- Source: Industrial Analysis Branch, Budget and Reports Division, Office of the Controller. TABLE V.-Number and amount of loans authorized to companies in the iron and steel industry through June 9, 1950 1 Number count does not include the Kaiser Co. refunding loans. * Includes $11,500,000 of new money authorized in Kaiser Co. refunding loans. 3 Includes 6 authorizations totaling $374,200 which were liquidated through bankruptcy and foreclosure proceedings. * Includes 2 authorizations totaling $6,350,000 which are only partially disbursed. Source: Industrial Analysis Branch, Budget and Reports Division, Office of the Controller. DAVIS, POLK, WARDWELL, SUNDERLAND & KIENDL, Hon. EARL C. MICHENER, House of Representatives Office Building, 15 BROAD STREET, New York, N. Y., June 2, 1950. Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CONGRESSMAN: As one of counsel for the defendants in the so-called investment bankers antitrust suit in the Southern District of New York, I was interested to note in the proceedings of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Study of Monopoly Power on April 25th, your success in ascertaining from counsel to the Subcommittee the source of four documents offered by counsel "for the record." This offer was apparently made at the beginning of the hearing that day, and had no relation to any matters being testified to before the Committee. The colloquy appears at pp. 854-7 of the Stenographic transcript April 25th. The Government's suit under the antitrust laws against 17 investment bankers was commenced in October 1947 and has not yet been brought to trial, although the defendants attempted to begin trial in April. Various efforts have been made by unidentified persons enjoying some connection with the Department of Justice to try it before Congress in preference to trying it in court. I beg leave particularly to call to your attention the following: 1. The four documents placed in the Subcommittee's record by counsel were exhibits for identification 133 and 143 marked on the deposition of John Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. and 1189 and 1208 marked on the deposition of Monroe Gutman, of Lehman Bros. Both of these firms are defendants. Neither deposition has been offered in evidence nor have any of the four documents, since the trial has not yet begun. 2. The four documents are dated at various dates between 1927 and 1936, the oldest thus being 20 years before the suit started and the most recent being 11 years before. 3. The complaint in the Government's suit against the investment bankers is filled with general charges of monopoly and unlawful combination. These charges the defendants have denied and expect to show to be false in all material particulars on the trial of the action. While awaiting trial (which the Government has deferred) we protest against any attempt to try the case before Congressional committees, where the right of confrontation and cross-examination does not exist and where indeed Congress does not want the atmosphere and tactics of a trial because they would be no aid to legislation. I call attention to the fact that, as shown in the index to the last two volumes of proceedings of your Subcommittee. Serial No. 14. Parts 2A and 2B, the investment bankers suit has nevertheless been brought into the record by reference at least eight times, sometimes by remarks of the Chairman, sometimes by accusation and charges of Cyrus Eaton, a witness whom we doubt that the Govern ment will venture to bring before Judge Medina. 4. The former chief trial counsel on the Government's staff, Roscoe E. Steffen, who framed the complaint, has left the staff and is now a Professor of Law at the University of Chicago. Mr. Levi, who now places in the record of your Subcommittee identification exhibits from the investment bankers case, is a colleague of Mr. Steffen at the University of Chicago. As an instance of the error and misinformation which is bound to creep into your Subcommittee's record as a result of attempting to try before you a case which belongs in the courts I mention in passing Mr. Levi's statement (SM 854) that Mr. Seward Prosser was associated with Guaranty Trust Company; the fact is that he was never an officer of Guaranty Trust Company but was an officer of Bankers Trust Company. 5. On March 9, 1950, the defendants formally moved before Judge Medina to set the case down for trial April 3rd and to begin trial on that date. At that time some 6,000 pages of testimony had been taken by the Government upon deposition and almost 5,000 documents had been authenticated for use on the trial. Yet Government counsel opposed the motion with the statement that they were not ready and needed more evidence. After further pretrial proceedings in which the Government took many measures to obtain delay, Judge Medina has signed Pre-Trial Order No. 2 dated May 25, 1950 with an accompanying memorandum of which I enclose a copy. The order sets the case down for trial October 9, 1950. The memorandum attached shows the extraordinary and ambitious scope and great expense of the action. Let me reiterate, respectfully and as emphatically as I can, that the defendants desire to try the case; that on the trial they expect to show the falsity of the major charges of the complaint; and that they believe trial and the judgment of the court will actually be of assistance to Congress in clarifying and dissipating the web of misinformation which has been carefully built up about "Wall Street" and the securities business. In the meantime I venture for myself to suggest that the committees of Congress can best serve the public interest by keeping out of your own record the proof which the Department of Justice has undertaken to place before the court, because in your record the evidence cannot be evaluated but in the court it can. It is the duty of the judicial arm to evaluate evidence, and the courts are specially qualified and equipped for that purpose. I trust that your Subcommittee will not relieve Government counsel of the burden of proving allegations which we expect to show to be untrue. As Subcommittee counsel has taken the step of bringing before you these four exhibits for identification from the investment bankers suit, perhaps you would be good enough to see that this letter of explanation and protest is inserted in the record of your Subcommittee with appropriate reference thereto at the page of the transcript where the offer of documents was made. Respectfully yours, RALPH M. CARSON. JULY 6, 1950. Mr. RALPH M. CARSON, Davis, Polk, Wardwell, Sunderland, and Kiendl, 15 Broad Street, New York 5, N. Y. DEAR MR. CARSON: I have your letter of June 22 addressed to Hon. Earl C. Michener. The documents to which you refer were introduced into the record because of their relevancy to the history of the financing of steel companies. Before these documents were introduced, I had been assured that they were public documents, and that one of the documents was a TNEC document. So far as I can now tell, only one of these documents, namely, the document marked "1208," was neither a TNEC document nor was its authenticity admitted, although it is a public document. I am told that all the other documents have had their authenticity as documents admitted or are TNEC documents. Since these documents all appear to me to be relevant to the history of steel financing, I think they were appropriately before a legislative committee investigating steel. I can assure you that there is no disposition to "try" the investment bankers' case before this Subcommittee or, for that matter, to "try" any pending antitrust action before this Subcommittee. The correction which you have made concerning the Bankers Trust Company has been made, and I will be happy to have a note put in with reference to the document marked "1208." Sincerely yours, EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman. Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, DAVIS, POLK, WARDWELL, SUNDERLAND & KIENDL, Committee on Judiciary, House of Representatives Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CELLER: Thank you for your letter of July 6th responding to mine of June 22nd to Hon. Earl C. Michener with respect to four exhibits for identification from the so-called investment bankers case (United States v. H. S. Morgan et al. Civ. 43-757 Southern District of New York) introduced April 25th in the record of your Subcommittee on Study of Monopoly Power. There was no thought on our part of course to interfere with the production of evidence pertinent to any inquiry before a legislative committee. We had had some intimation that an attempt would be made to use Congressional investigations as a sounding board for the charges made in the antitrust suit referred to, on account of a belief entertained by some on the Government side that they cannot win their case in court. I am very glad to receive the assurance that any such attempt would not be countenanced by your Committee. Sincerely yours, RALPH M. CARSON, 96347-50-ser. 14, pt. 4b- -47 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-BEFORE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Docket No. 2565 In the Matter of NATIONAL ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, ITS OFFICERS, BOARD OF GOVERNORS, AND CERTAIN MEMBERS, SEPARATELY AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MEMBERS F. C. Jones, President, and Member of Board of Governors, W. J. Donald, Managing Director, T. W. Howard, Director Uniform Accounting and Statistical Department, C. M. Cogan, Director Engineering Department; and all the members of its Board of Governors (the present personnel of said Board not being known to the Commission); and the following members of respondent association, separately and as representatives of the remaining members; American Electrical Works American Steel and Wire Co. Bishop Wire and Cable Corporation General Cable Corporation General Electric Company Habirshaw Cable and Wire Corporation Phelps Dodge Copper Products Corporation Triangle Conduit and Cable Company COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of an Act of Congress approved September 26, 1914, entitled "An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes," the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that the respondents named and represented in the caption hereof have been and are using unfair methods of competition in commerce as "commerce" is defined in said Act and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint, stating its charges in that respect as follows: Paragraph One: The members of respondent association and of its various groups, sections and divisions, consist of several hundred corporations, individuals, firms and partnerships, their number varying from time to time by the separation of some and the addition of others, so that it is impracticable at any given time to name as respondents and to bring before the Commission each and all the members without manifest delay and inconvenience. Therefore, the Commission names and includes as respondents in this proceeding, both separately and as representatives of all the members of the association, the following officers: F. C. Jones, President, and Member of Board of Governors; W. J. Donald, Managing Director; T. W. Howard, Director Uniform Accounting and Statistical Department; C. M. Cogan, Director Engineering Department: the board of governors (whose present membership is not known to the Commission) and the following members of respondent association: American Electrical Works, Philadelphia, Pa. (a Rhode Island corporation); American Steel and Wire Co., Worcester, Mass. (a New Jersey corporation); Anaconda Wire and Cable Co., New York, N. Y. (a Delaware corporation); Bishop Wire and Cable Corporation, New York, N. Y. ( a New York corporation); Boston Insulated Wire and Cable Co., Boston, Mass. (a Massachusetts corporation); Crescent Insulated Wire and Cable Co., Trenton, N. J. (a New Jersey corporation); General Cable Corporation, New York, N. Y. (a New Jersey corporation); General Electric Company, Schenectady, N. Y. (a New York corporation); Habirshaw Cable and Wire Corporation, New York, N. Y. (a New York corporation); National Electrical Products Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pa. (a Delaware corpora |