act and for its success by that association, it seems to me that the views of the association upon the O'Hara bill and its effect upon the Administrative Procedure Act would be very helpful to this committee in determining the merits or demerits of this bill. As a member of the American Bar Association, I have been informed that the association and its administrative law section will submit its impartial views upon this bill, if requested to do so. The CHAIRMAN. What is the set-up of the counsel? general counsel is the Chief. Who comes next? I assume the Mr. CASSEDY. I have some charts here, Mr. Chairman, that I think you will find helpful. (The chart is printed herewith.) Mr. CASSEDY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say with respect to myself, that for the past 22 years, I have been engaged in the practice of law, and for 8 years of that time I served as a district attorney in the State of Mississippi, for 3 years I was assistant attorney general in Mississippi. For 5 years I have been employed by the Federal Trade Commission. For three and a half of those years I was a trial attorney, and for one and a half years I have been assistant general counsel, engaged principally in briefing and arguing Federal Trade Commission cases in the circuit courts of appeals. The CHAIRMAN. I do not get this set-up in the legal department. There is a general counsel. How many assistants general counsel are there? Mr. CASS DY. The function of handling the Commission's cases which are reviewed by the courts after decision by the Commission is performed by the general counsel, an association general counsel, and an assistant general counsel, with the necessary assisting attorneys. Under the general counsel, an assistant general counsel administers trade-mark, compliance, and enforcement matters. I might say there is one assistant general counsel who handles the trade-mark matters, and one who now handles compliance and enforcement matters, making three in all. Does that answer your question? The CHAIRMAN. In a measure. I did not draw the distinction between assistant and associate. Mr. WHITELEY. An associate is on the level of general counsel, on a grade level, just like an associate justice of the court; and an assistant is in a lower pay level for the purposes of pay. Mr. HALE. One general, or chief counsel; one associate, and one assistant; is that right? Mr. WHITELEY. That is right. Mr. CASSEDY. Mr. Chairman, I have some additional charts that, during the course of the hearings, have been mentioned. I have one table dealing with complaints and applications for complaints pending at the beginning of the year 1939, that is for the fiscal year, and throughout the subsequent years up to date. The CHAIRMAN. The table will be placed in the record. Mr. CASSEDY. I have another table which gives the number of cases on appeal from the Commission's orders; that is, petitions for review of Federal Trade Commission orders by circuit courts of appeals throughout the years from 1939 to date; petitions for writs of certiorari in Federal Trade Commission cases in the Supreme Court from 1939 to date; appeals in cases, where orders to cease and desist were affirmed by the circuit courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court, given by years from 1939 to date; appeals in cases where orders to cease and desist were affirmed as modified by the circuit courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court, from 1939 to date; appeals withdrawn or dismissed in circuit courts of appeals leaving orders to cease and desist in effect, from 1939 to date; with a total of those cases, as compared with appeals in cases where orders to cease and desist were reversed, remanded, or set aside by the circuit courts of appeals and the Supreme Court, from 1939 to date. The CHAIRMAN. The table will be placed in the record. Mr. ELLSWORTH. What is the difference between a complaint and application for complaint? Mr. CASSEDY. If there was a matter which you, yourself, Congressman, reported to the Commission that you knew of and thought constituted a violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, that would would be received by the Bureau of Legal Investigations in the Commission and would be docketed by that Bureau as an application for complaint, and in the terminology of the Commission you would be termed the "applicant" by reason of your having reported the matter to the Commission. I have one other table that may be helpful to the committee, with respect to the personnel in the Federal Trade Commission as of March 31, 1948, showing the number of people and who and what they are in the various bureaus and divisions of the Commission. The CHAIRMAN. The table will be made a part of the record. Mr. CASSEDY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to file with the committee several copies of the Federal Trade Commission Act compared with the amendments proposed by the O'Hara bill. And I would like to call attention to the fact that several days ago when the hearings were first begun on this bill, I furnished to the clerk and he to the members who were present, some copies of the Federal Trade Commission's Rules of Practice, as amended, to conform with the Administrative Procedure Act, which I would like to file for the record. The CHAIRMAN. It will be made a part of the record at this point. (The two documents mentioned above have been placed in the committee files.) Mr. CASSEDY. I have some printed copies of the Rules, Policy, Organization, and Acts of the Federal Trade Commission that are presently in force, dated November 20, 1947, which show the rules and organization of the Commission, which have been conformed to the Administrative Procedure Act. I will file these with the clerk. Reference was made in these hearings to trade-practice rules of the Federal Trade Commission. With the permission of the chairman, I am filing with the clerk, a copy of all of the Trade Practice Rules that have been issued by the Commission up to date. The CHAIRMAN. It will be filed for the committee's use. Mr. CASSEDY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a statement with respect to the testimony of Mr. Casper W. Ooms and Mr. James F. Hoge. One of the cases mentioned by Mr. Ooms was that of the Scotch Woolen Mills. I am personally familiar with that case, having studied it and had some connection with it, since it was appealed and while pending in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at Chicago. Mr. Ooms, I understand, was connected with this case during the trial. I was not connected with it at that time, but only after the order was issued during the period it was pending in the circuit court of appeals. I do not have any records in my possession at the present time, but that case began approximately in 1920, and after a period of trial, including the taking of testimony, it was briefed, argued, and submitted to the Commission. The Commission entered an order of dismissal in 1922. Subsequent to that date, specifically in 1938, the Federal Trade Commission Act was amended. Prior to that amendment, section 5 prohibited only unfair methods of competition in commerce. After the Wheeler-Lea amendment was enacted, as I am sure those of you on the committee at that time will remember, that amendment added the provision that unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce are declared to be unlawful. By reason of the change in the law, the Chief Counsel filed a motion before the Commission to reopen that case which had been dismissed in 1922. The proceedings to reopen, I believe, were in 1942. I could be mistaken as to the dates, but they are approximately correct. The case was reopened by the Commission, and in that connection, I refer you to subsection b of section 5. You will find the point I refer to on page 6 of the document comparing the Federal Trade |