Additional information-Continued Quigley, James M., a Representative in Congress from the State of Letter, April 4, 1955, to Hon. Wright Patman.. Reply to questions submitted by Congressman Evins Resolution authorizing and directing an investigation of the anti- Results of nationwide poll made by National Federation of Independ- Roberts, J. Gordon, president, Roberts Dairy Co., Omaha, Nebr.: Rogers, William P., Deputy Attorney General, letter, March 8, 1955, Roosevelt, Hon. James, a Representative in Congress from the State of Page 110 111 2318 2298 583 2271 2532 2533 54 Telegram to Attorney General.. 1873 Letter, March 25, 1955, to Assistant Attorney General_. 1874 Salter, L. J., Salter Canning Co., Inc., North Rose, N. Y., letter, April 118 Schneider, Warren A., vice president, Station Plaza (RVC), letter, Staples, D. T., president, Tide Water Associated Oil Co., San Fran- cisco, Calif., letter, July 18, 1955, to Hon. Emanuel Celler, with Steele, Hoyt P., president, United States Chamber of Commerce, letter, June 16, 1955, to Hon. Emanuel Celler, enclosing file of spe- cific current cases illustrating either secondary boycotts or restric- tive organizational picketing- Summary of report of the Attorney General's National Committee To Supreme Court decision, Mac O. Williamson, Attorney General of the Text of statement by Howard Page, representing the Consortium 564 725 724 2628 The International Petroleum Carcel, pages 210 to 228 entitled “World 765 The Price of Oil in Western Europe, prepared by the Secretariat of the 782 Vicks, Albert P., manager, Pennsylvania Food Merchants Association, 111 2622 Voorhis, Jerry, executive director, the Cooperative League of the Wall Street Journal, article entitled "Major United States Firms Given Antitrust Immunity To Join in Iran Oil Deal-Action Clears Way Whaley, W. C., Sunray Mid-Continent Oil Co., Tulsa, Okla., letter, 2625 Wilson, Harry B., Wilson & Wilson, Malden, Mass., letter, April 27, 115 ANTITRUST AND MONOPOLY PROBLEMS MONDAY, MAY 23, 1955 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess at 10:30 a. m., in room 346. Old House Office Building, Hon. Emanuel Celler (chairman) presiding. Present: Representatives Celler (chairman), Rogers, McCulloch. Also present: Herbert N. Maletz, chief counsel and Kenneth R. Harkins, cocounsel. The CHAIRMAN. The meeting will come to order. The Chair wants to read a letter into the record dated May 17, 1955, received from Thomas McConnell which is as follows: DEAR CONGRESSMAN CELLER: I have not had an opportunity to return to my office or read the various transcripts of the proceedings in the Zenith case in Chicago, but my associates have advised me that the transcript of April 30, 1954, shows that Mr. Cahill was referring to a report of the committee on practice and procedure in antitrust cases of the American Bar Association. Mr. Cahill had referred to this as "to be released" and I therefore assumed erroneously as it turns out that it was an advanced copy of the Attorney General's Antitrust Committee report. However, I find that Mr. Cahill was a member of the council whose committee wrote the report to which he referred, and Mr. Albert C. Bickford and Mr. Jerome Doyle, who were Committee members, have appeared in the Zenith case as counsel for the cross defendants. This report stated on the issue being argued before Judge Igoe: "It would also seem to be feasible in antitrust cases having as one of the central issues questions of patent validity and coverage to separate out that issue." The report of the Attorney General's Committee recommends (p. 249): "Further, in any patent infringement suit in which antitrust violation is the basis of defense, or counterclaims the court pursuant to rule 42B of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should order separate trials of the antitrust issues and the patent issues." The two committees mentioned have the following members in common: Breck P. McAlister, Francis B. Kirkham, Fred E. Fuller, and Herbert W. Clark. From the above it appears that my testimony is in error in ascribing to Mr. Cahill a reference to the Attorney General's report before Judge Igoe, and the testimony should be corrected accordingly. It does appear, however, that the recommendation in the report of the Attorney General's Committee stems from the report to which Mr. Cahill made reference and that the latter report was being cited before publication and therefore without any opportunity on my part to meet it or check it. The point I was seeking to make before your committee was not that the report had "leaked," but to illustrate the use that defense counsel make of reports which they themselves create and then cite in support of contentions they are making in pending antitrust litigation in which they appear. Agreeing with Mr. Cahill's statement to the press that the report to which he had referred was the American Bar Association report, he admits by his own statement that he used a report which he and other defense counsel participated in drafting in support of his arguments in the Zenith case in Chicago. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS C. MCCONNELL. The Chair wishes to comment that Mr. McConnell should have been more careful indeed before he made any statement before this committee concerning the Attorney General's Committee report. He misled this committee in stating that it was the Attorney General's Committee's report or portions thereof that had been cited in the Zenith case, whereas he now admits it was not that report that was used but some other report. I think the gentleman, Mr. Thomas C. McConnell, deserves condign criticism for thus misleading this committee. I am very happy, however, that he has admitted his error and that he has asked me to put this admission of error into the record. His letter will be accepted in the record. I had admonished Mr. McConnell at the outset of his testimony that this committee would not be used as any kind of a forum to advance the cause that he was seeking to advance in litigation in which he has been acting as attorney for the Zenith Corp. Now, we have before us a very distinguished member of the bar, president of the American Bar Association, Mr. Loyd Wright. I want to say, Mr. Wright, that the American Bar Association has always been very helpful to this committee. Many bills have been submitted to the American Bar Association for comment, and its reports have been read by this committee and subcommittees thereof, with a great deal of comfort. Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am in the unhappy position of appearing- The CHAIRMAN. You may be seated, if you wish. STATEMENT OF LOYD WRIGHT, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION Mr. WRIGHT. May I stand? I feel more at home. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. You feel like you are trying a case. Mr. WRIGHT. If I may. I am in the unhappy position of appearing before you without any definitive action having been taken as yet by the American Bar Association. I have filed a statement, and will have this afternoon copies for all of the committee, offering our services. Under our procedure, the house of delegates is the policy making body, and no one else has any authority to take a definite position on proposed legislation. We can, however, in the interim, and I will as soon as the section on antitrust submits its report, contact the board of governors who have the interim authority to speak on behalf of or authorize others to speak on behalf of the American Bar Association. I might say that I think it is safe to assume that since 45 of the 60 members of the Attorney General's Committee were lawyers of the-I mean 46-and of the 46, 40 are members of the American Bar Association's antitrust section, that in all probability that will cast a shadow of what we may expect ultimately in the report. But it is our desire, sir, to be helpful and to do whatever we can in response to the chairman and the committee's request; and at some subsequent time when we have had the opportunity to thoroughly examine the report, to submit our thoughts. I am here to promise the committee that. I would ask, sir, that this preliminary statement which I have drafted might be made a part of the record for two purposes: First, there has been much criticism or unhappy comment that the American Bar does not represent all lawyers at all levels, and I wish, so that the actual force of our report would be considered by the committee as coming from a truly representative body, to give you further statistics. The CHAIRMAN. I want to say, Mr. Wright, that criticism does not stem from this committee. Mr. WRIGHT. I did not hear, sir. The CHAIRMAN. That criticism does not stem from this committee. Mr. WRIGHT. I know that; I know that. But since I anticipate that we will have a very long and definite report or criticism or comment to make to the committee, I thought, if I anticipated that at this time, it would relieve the committee at some subsequent time from hearing that kind of a background foundation. The CHAIRMAN. That is perfectly agreeable to us; and I think it would be a bit premature then to ask any questions of you unless you wish to ask any, Mr. McCulloch. Mr. McCULLOCH. No. The CHAIRMAN. Then we will expect an additional statement from the association later on. Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. After you have had an opportunity, through your House of Delegates, to pass upon the various items. Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. All right, thank you very much. MAY 23, 1955. To the Honorable Emanuel Celler, Chairman, and Members of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives of the United States: Pursuant to an invitation of your honorable chairman, I have the privilege of appearing here to make a general statement on behalf of the American Bar Association in relation to the Report of the Attorney General's National Committee To Study the Antitrust Laws. In order that the committee may have a thorough understanding of the procedures of the American Bar Association in relation to legislation, may I be permitted to give you a few salient facts about the organization. We have between 55,000 and 56,000 members scattered throughout the United States, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Alaska. The house of delegates, which is the policymaking body of our association, represents additionally approximately some 150,000 by the process of representation. This comes about by reason of the fact that State bar associations and local bar associations may certify representatives to the house of delegates, and they participate in the proceedings to a greater extent than the individuals who hold membership because the individuals have no inherent right to be seated in the house of delegates by reason of individual membership. There have been, from time to time, statements made depreciating the broad base of both membership and participation in the House of Delegates. I would like, by the recitation of a few statistics, to prove that these statements must come about by a complete lack of understanding of the composition of the house of delegates. One hundred and twenty-one members of the house attended law schools within the State in which they are now practicing; 44 percent attended out-of-State law schools. All together there are 72 law schools represented in the house. As I before indicated, each State and Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and |