Federal Trade Commission v. Miller's National Federation, 5276.

• Decision Date: 02 February 1931
• Docket Number: No. 5276.,5276.
• Parties: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. MILLERS' NATIONAL FEDERATION et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

47 F.2d 428 (1931)

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. MILLERS' NATIONAL FEDERATION et al.

No. 5276.

Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.

Argued December 1, 1930.

Decided February 2, 1931.

Robert E. Healy, Martin A. Morrison, and James T. Clark, all of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

K. D. Loos, of Washington, D. C., Stephen A. Foster, of Chicago, Ill., E. Barrett Prettyman, of Washington, D. C., and Edward S. Rogers, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

This appeal is from a decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia enjoining the enforcement of subpœnas issued by the Federal Trade Commission.

In February, 1924, the United States Senate adopted the following resolution: "Resolved, That the Federal Trade Commission be, and it is hereby, directed to investigate the production, distribution, transportation and sale of flour and bread, including by-products, and report its findings in full to the Senate, showing the costs, prices, and profits at each stage of the process of production and distribution from the time the wheat leaves the farm until the bread is delivered to the consumer; the extent and method of price fixing, price maintenance and price discrimination; the developments in the direction of monopoly and concentration of control in the milling and baking industries; and all evidence indicating the existence of agreements, conspiracies, or compensations in restraint of trade."

Thereafter the Commission directed an investigation and issued subpœnas for witnesses, requiring the production of certain records and papers belonging to the Millers' National Federation. The jurisdiction of the Commission to issue the subpœnas in question in the conduct of the investigation authorized by the resolution of the Senate is assailed. The subpœnas issued in this case require two things: First, the attendance of the witness to testify; and, second, to bring with him certain papers described in the subpœna. It may here be suggested that in the agreed statement of facts it is conceded by appellee federation that the documents and records named in the subpœnas are pertinent, relevant, and material to the matters concerning which the Commission was directed to make an investigation. Coming to the question of jurisdiction, we are of opinion that the matters referred to the Commission by the resolution of the Senate for investigation contemplates such an investigation as might have been pursued by a committee of the Senate for the procuring of facts and information in aid of possible legislation, since the subject-matter of the investigation relates to commerce, and is therefore within the legislative jurisdiction of Congress.

Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 USCA § 45) confers upon the Commission quasi judicial authority to institute a proceeding against any person, partnership, or corporation that it has reason to believe has been or is using any unfair method of competition in commerce. The statute then provides a method of procedure by which the person complained of and charged with the offense of using unfair methods of competition shall be accorded a hearing, and, if found guilty, the Commission is authorized to issue an order requiring the person, partnership, or corporation to cease and desist from using such unfair methods of competition. The statute then provides for the enforcement of the order of the Commission, where the person charged fails or neglects to obey its order, by application to the proper Circuit Court of Appeals...