Crosse & Blackwell Company, Pompeian Olive Oil Corporation, Mccormick & Company, Inc.

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

IN THE ~fatter OF CROSSE & BLACI("\VELL COMP ANY POMPEIAN OLIVE OIL CORPORATION, l\fcCORJ\fICIC & COl\fP ANY, INC. Dockets 61,63, 61,68 1/'10. Orders and opinion, Mar. , 1956 Interloctuory order in Clayton Act proceeding denying respondents' appeals from hearing examiner s denial of motions to quash subpoenas duces tecum issued by' him.

Before JI/r. Frank Hier' hearing examiner. Mr. Andrew O. Goodhope and Mr. Frederic T. Su.ss for the Com- Niles, Barton, Yost Dankmeyer of Baltimore, Md. , and Mr.mission. James W. Cassedy, of Washington, D. C., for Crosse & Blackwell Mr. Morton J. Hollander of Baltimore, lid. , and l't/r. a'lnes W.Co. Cassedy, of "\Vashington, D. C., for Pompeian Olive Oil Corp. Anderson, Barnes Ooe of Baltimore, J\fd. , andJlfr. James W. Cassedy, of Washington, D. C., for McCormick & Co., Inc. ORDER RULING ON RESPONDENTS' Appeals FROM ORDER OF HEARING EXAMINER The respondents having filed appeals from the hearing examiner order denying their motions to quash the subpoenas duces tecum , issued by the hearing examiner on January 12, 1956; and The matter having been heard on the briefs of counsel and the Commission having determined, for reasons stated in its accompanying opinion, that the appeals should be denied: It is ordered That the respondents' appeals be, and they hereby , are, denied.

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION Per Curiam:

The respondents in each of these cases filed motions to quash the ! subpoenas duces tecum which were issued by the hearing examiner directing production, by designated officers of the respective respondent corporations, of records and documentary information there described. Those motions were denied by the hearing examiner and, as permitted under Section 3.17 (d) of the Commission s published rules and procedures, the respondents have brought appeals here from his rulings.

The complaints in these proceedings charge that each of the respondents has engaged in acts and practices violative of subsection CROSSE & BLACKWELL CO. ET AL. 1015 1014 Opinion (d) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended. The appellants contend that the hearing examiner erred in failing to quash the ehallenged subpoenas duces tecum for the reasons (a) that the Commission lacks such power of compulsory process in proceedings instituted under the Clayton Act, and (b) that the requirements of the subpoenas are unreasonable and their' enforcement will serve to deprive the respondents of rights afforded them under the Fourth Amendment.

It is not controlling, however, that the Commission was not expressly empowered in the Clayton Act to issue subpoenas in inquiries and proceedings instituted under that Act. Nor is it material here that Section 9 of the Federal Trade Commission Act in referring to the visitorial and other powers conferred upon the Commission thereunder, relates such authority to the purposes of ordersthat Aet. Under the Clayton Act, service of complaints, and "other processes" is specifically provided for. Broad powers of compulsory process in the discharge of its duties have been conferred upon the Commission under the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Act were enacted as remedial measures designed to correct apparent defieiencies in the Sherman Act through administrati ve proceedings. They are statutes in pari materia which were enacted in the same session of Congress and, therefore, are to be eonstrued together so as to reinforce their common legislative purpose. ' The Federal Trade Commission was designated as a major agency for enforcement of Sections 2, 3, 7 and 8 of the Clayton Act. That designation necessarily implied that the Commission was to be aided in the effective discharge of its duties in adversary proceedings by the compulsory processes which were being made available to it under its organic act. That Congress thus intended is clear because Section 11 of the Clayton Act provides for quasi-judicial hearings culminating in findings as to the facts and orders, including orders to cease and desist, and, without the power to compel the production of evidence in the course of proceedings thereunder the danger of improvident orders lacking bases in fact would be great. We hold, therefore, that there is sound legal basis for the issuance and enforcement of the Commission s processes requiring the production of appropriate information in Clayton Act inquiries and adjudicative proceedings.

Also without merit are the appellants' contentions that the requirements of the challenged subpoenas are unreasonable and impinge on the respondents' constitutional rights. The appeals do 1016 FEDERAL TRADE CO:M:MISSION DECISrrONS Opinion 52 F. T. C. not challenge the Commission s substantive authority to institute these proceedings or the lawful purpose thereof. The date and information requested in each of the subpoenas are limited to designated periods of time and confined to three metropolitan areas wherein each of the respondents apparently engages in the distribution of products; and the documents and information requested are clearly identified. The data s relevancy to the allegations of the complaints is apparent and the material requested appears necessary for disposition of the issues which will be presented for determination in each proceeding. In these circumstances, the directions of the subpoenas must be regarded as reasonable and valid.

There being no error in the rulings appealed from, the appeals are being denied.

HARPER & BROTHERS 1017 Decision