Are you still of the same mind that you are loath to submit to the committee the names of the individuals composing the work groups on the committee? STATEMENT OF S. CHESTERFIELD OPPENHEIM, COCHAIRMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S NATIONAL COMMITTEE TO STUDY ANTITRUST LAWS-Resumed Mr. OPPENHEIM. Mr. Chairman, in response to your request I conferred with Judge Barnes about that matter, and we feel that we pledged ourselves to the committee and obtained a consensus, or, at least, there was a consensus that the names of the work group members be not disclosed, and we feel that that was done for the very reason stated by Judge Barnes himself in his testimony before this subcommittee, which I repeated the other day, namely, that the purpose was solely to give assurance that the thinking would be concentrated on the ideas and concepts and doctrines, rather than perhaps generating a tendency to think of individuals or individual views or personalities. That was our purpose. I would like to say that we have no thought in our minds that there is any reason for not disclosing the names so far as having any fear that the disclosure would in any way prejudice either the committee or the public interest. The CHAIRMAN. Of course, as I indicated to you the last time you testified, we could by other means get all of these names. We could, I think in the event that you refused to answer, probably compel you to give us the names. We could subpena all of the members and ask what work group they participated in. That would be a difficult assignment for us, and one rather disagreeable to us. But since you and Judge Barnes take that position, why, we will let it rest there. I have great respect for Judge Barnes' opinion. I have respect for your opinion. If you feel great embarrassment to the members who participated in those work groups, I will accept that opinion, and let it rest there. It shall not constitute a precedent. We can get those names if we wish, but I do not think that we should go to extremes to do so. So we will let that matter rest there. You may state that to Judge Barnes. Mr. OPPENHEIM. I shall. The CHAIRMAN. You were appointed, I believe, as cochairman on July 9, 1953, by Attorney General Brownell, is that correct? Mr. OPPENHEIM. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. Did you have a responsibility for the selection of the members of the Attorney General's committee? Mr. OPPENHEIM. I shared very much in that responsibility. The CHAIRMAN. It was you and Judge Barnes, I take it, that had the final responsibility for the appointments? Mr. OPPENHEIM. Not the final responsibility, Mr. Chairman, but Judge Barnes and I made the recommendations for appointment to the Attorney General who, of course, had the final decision as to the membership. I wondered whether you wanted me as indicated last time to pick up with that part of my statement which I reserved last time. The CHAIRMAN. I do not think it is necessary. We will just get it by question-and-answer form. Were any of your recommendations as to membership overruled by the Attorney General? Mr. OPPENHEIM. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Did you get recommendations for the inclusion of names from individuals, corporations, and trade associations et cetera ? Mr. OPPENHEIM. My statement shows, by way of illustration, we did receive many suggestions from the outside, and I should characterize that as recommendations coming from organizations or associations, from individual Senators and Congressmen of the Congress of the United States, from individual lawyers, from the Antitrust Division and Federal Trade Commission, from educational sources, a variety of suggestions, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Before the Attorney General finalized the selection, did you check to see whether or not any of the members, particularly the lawyer members proposed, represented any defendants in pending antitrust suits brought by the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission? Mr. OPPENHEIM. I did not. And I may say, to my knowledge, Judge Barnes did not make any efforts, that is, systematic efforts to do that. There were a few instances where the public knowledge of the participation of a member as counsel in a past antitrust case, or perhaps, even in a pending antitrust case was easily available. The CHAIRMAN. We have a revised list of attorneys, professors, economists, public officials and labor representatives. The breakdown of the committee, including the co-chairman, is as follows. Practicing lawyers, 42 in number; professors of law, 7 in number; economists, 8 in number; public officials, 4 in number; and labor representatives, 1 in number, making a combined total of 62. Mr. OPPENHEIM. Did you say 42 practitioners? The CHAIRMAN. Practicing lawyers. Mr. OPPENHEIM. That is a much larger number than I believe represents the number of practicing lawyers on the committee, but at the moment I would not want to refute it without checking it. I did not have that impression. The CHAIRMAN. You gave us the membership list. Mr. OPPENHEIM. That is true. The CHAIRMAN. That is what I am reading from. We tabulated it. Mr. OPPENHEIM. I should like to have an opportiunity to make my tabulation on the basis of the records we had, because I feel that is a very high number of practicing lawyers compared to the one I would compute. The CHAIRMAN. We will be very glad to be corrected, if we are wrong. Mr. MALETZ. How many practicing lawyers do you feel were members of the committee? Mr. OPPENHEIM. I would say that the majority of the committee members consisted of practicing lawyers. Mr. MALETZ. You would say that the number 42 is low? Mr. OPPENHEIM. I think it is very high. Mr. MALETZ. You say the majority of the members of the committee were practicing lawyers, but you think that there were less than 42, is that correct? Mr. OPPENHEIM. My impression is much less than 42. The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you give your version when you correct your testimony. Mr. OPPENHEIM. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. We have ascertained that of the 42 practicing lawyers who were members of the committee, 50 percent of those lawyers or their law firms had cases in which they were representing defendants in pending antitrust cases brought by either the Federal Trade Commission or the Department of Justice. Mr. OPPENHEIM. Let me say that, speaking for myself only, I was not conscious, nor did I in any way intend to pursue the matter of ascertaining the clients represented by any law firm with which a prospective member was associated. I simply felt that was not pertinent to the criteria for the selection which I set forth in my statement, and I wonder whether it would not be desirable to permit me, Mr. Chairman, at this point, to state those criteria first before you ask any further questions. The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. Will you put in the record the names of those lawyers who were in your estimation practicing lawyers? Of those, could you give the names of the attorneys who personally or through their law firms represented defendants in pending antitrust cases either before the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission? Mr. OPPENHEIM. Well, that information, Mr. Chairman, I would suppose would come from the information already supplied to you if my understanding is correct. The CHAIRMAN. I have been informed that the Federal Trade Commission has given that information, and we will put that in the record. (The letter, with attachments dated May 19, 1955, is as follows:) Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In accordance with your letter of April 22, 1955, to Mr. Earl W. Kintner, the Commission's General Counsel, as supplemented by subsequent telephone conversations between Mr. Kintner and Mr. Maletz, of the committee's staff, there is transmitted herewith a list of Federal Trade Commission formal cases and merger clearances handled since January 1, 1946, by each member of the Attorney General's National Committee To Study the Antitrust Laws, or handled during that period by the firm with which he is affiliated, together with an indication of the disposition of such matters. The list, as requested, covers Federal Trade Commission Act and Clayton Act cases. The attached list also notes cases in which economists on the committee have acted as consultants. Since the Commission's indexes do not, except in rare instances, disclose this information, it has been necessary to rely upon the personal knowledge of members of the Commission's economic, investigative, and trial staffs in supplying the answer to this portion of your inquiry. Mr. Robert A. Bicks, executive secretary of the Attorney General's National Committee To Study the Antitrust Laws, possibly may be able to supply additional information in this regard. There is also enclosed for your information a membership list of the committee, including a listing of the firms with which the members are affiliated. A copy of the listing herein has been sent to Mr. Bicks in accordance with your request. By direction of the Commission. Sincerely yours, ROBERT M. PARRISH, Secretary. APPEARANCES IN FORMAL CASES BEFORE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION BY MEMBERS, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMITTEE TO STUDY ANTITRUST LAWS, AND LAW FIRMS WITH WHICH THEY ARE OR HAVE BEEN AFFILIATED JANUARY 1, 1946, TO APRIL 30, 1955 Walter Adams (nothing). Morris A. Adelman (nothing). Cyrus Anderson (nothing). Douglas Arant (nothing) White, Bradley, Arant & All White, Bradley, Arant, All & Rose D. 5449-Metal Lath Mfrs. Assn. et al. D. 5508-American Iron & Steel Institute et al. H. Thomas Austern D. 3927-American Tobacco Company Dismissed, March 17, 1948 D. 5433-Independent Grocers Alliance Distributing Co., et al. D. 5526-E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. Dismissed, October 20, 1949 D. 5532-Association of Coupon Book Manufacturers, et al. D. 5576-J. Richard Phillips, Jr. & Sons Inc., et al. D. 5608-American Chicle Co. Dismissed, September 23, 1949 D. 5623-The Larsen Company, et al. Order to cease and desist, February 6, 1950 D. 5794-Atlas Supply Company, et al. Order to cease and desist, July 19, 1951 Pending Covington & Burling Covington, Burling, Rublee & Shorb Covington, Burling, Rublee, Acheson & Shorb D. 4685-E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. D. 4826-American Cigarette & Cigar Company, Inc. D. 4827-American Tobacco Co. Order to cease and desist, June 20, 1951 Modified, April 9, 1952 Petition for review dismissed, CCA7, March 11, 1952 D. 5017-Ruberoid Company Order to cease and desist, January 20, 1950 Order to cease and desist affirmed, enforcement denied, Order to cease and desist affirmed, enforcement denied, D. 5324-National Retail Furniture Assn., et al. Dismissed, December 7, 1951 D. 5338-National Modes, Inc., et al. Order to cease and desist, February 3, 1950 D. 5351-Univis Lens Company, et al. Order to cease and desist, November 12, 1948 D. 5526-See Austern D. 5532-See Austern H. Thomas Austern-Continued D. 5994-H. J. Heinz Company, et al.-Continued D. 5534-Bonner Packing Company, et al. Order to cease and desist, November 9, 1950 D. 5608-See Austern D. 5623-See Austern Cyrus Austin: D. 6235-New York Coffee & Sugar Exchange, Inc., et al. D. 5017-Ruberoid Company Order to cease and desist, January 20, 1950 Order to cease and desist affirmed, enforcement denied, CCA2, Sep- Order to cease and desist affirmed, enforcement denied, USSC, May 26, Appell, Austin & Gay D. 5017-See Cyrus Austin Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft D. 5377-American Mercury, Inc., et al. Wendell B. Barnes (nothing) Wendell Berge D. 5536-Radio-Television Training School, et al. D. 6238-American Life & Accident Insurance Co. D. 6239-Automobile Owners Safety Insurance Co. Pending D. 6243-Guarantee Reserve Life Insurance Co. of Hammond, et al. Pending D. 6247-Life Insurance Company of America, et al. Pending D. 6276-Postal Life & Casualty Insurance Co. Pending Posner, Berge, Fox & Arent Berge, Fox & Arent Berge, Fox, Arent & Layne D. 5356-International Assn. of Electrotypers & Stereotypers, Order to cease and desist, October 23, 1952 Petition to Review withdrawn, CCA9, February 20, 1953 D. 5536-See Wendel Berge D. 5573-Joe Lowe Corporation Dismissed, February 3, 1949 Bruce Bromley (nothing). Cravath, Swaine & Moore Cravath, de Gersdorf, Swaine & Wood D. 3091-Cast Iron Soil Pipe Association, et al. Dismissed, July 30, 1948 D. 4750-Rohm & Haas Company, Inc. Order closing case, January 26, 1948 D. 4920-Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. Parts I and II of order to cease and desist affirmed and en- |