It is most gratifying to us in the fishing industry to receive such support at a time when the entire industry faces extreme hardship and daily uphill struggle if we are to survive. May we again thank you for your most timely support. Very truly yours, JOE JURICH, Secretary-Treasurer. Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, ALASKA FISHERMEN'S UNION, AFL-CIO, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR WARREN: We have received your notice on hearings to be held on Senate bills S. 237, 2973, S. 3530, and S. 3229. I am unable to come to Washington to testify on the bills, but we are in favor of them all, and hope that the Congress will enact them into law. In our opinion, these bills and others which will deal with fisheries, follow closely the spirit and intent of the Reorganization Act of 1956, which established a national policy for the fisheries. These bills will implement and strengthen our position in the fishing industry, and I find it encouraging that Congress recognizes the value of keeping the fisheries in a healthy condition so as to insure a future food supply from the sea. Senate bill 3530 merits the utmost consideration because of the injustice of placing the fishery association on a different status than that which is granted the agricultural association. However, I believe the bill should be amended to also include unions engaged in fisheries. Under present laws, a union can be prosecuted under the Federal Trade Commission Act, and antitrust laws, if it attempts to bargain for so-called independent fishermen or fishermen who own their own boats and gear. A man who owns his own boat and gear is in an independent position. He wants to belong to a union. Why then should he be discriminated against by law if he chooses to have a union bargain for him? I would appreciate it if you would give some thought to this in discussing the bill, and in conclusion, I wish to assure you of our full support in your endeavors to strengthen our fisheries. Sincerely yours, GEORGE JOHANSEN. FISHERMEN'S MARKETING ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON, INC., To: Washington congressional delegation. S. 3530: The threat of Justice Department intervention is a constant source of concern to the various fishery associations who must concern themselves with marketing and price problems. Fishermen, like farmers, are surely entitled to the right to bargain and seek improved prices and conditions, and the threat of antitrust action in the simplest agreements is frustrating and contrary to any degree of success in fishery organization. We are heartily in favor of the enactment of this bill. Respectfully submitted. JOHN WEDIN, Manager. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, Hon. FREDERICK G. PAYNE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR PAYNE: I am writing to bring to your attention the deep interest and support of the ILWU fishery division for S. 3530. Unfortunately, because of being tied up in other matters, I was unable to participate in the hearing on the above bill which was held by the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee. I would like to urge that you insert this letter in the record of the hearing. The ILWU fishery division represents some 5,000 fishermen and allied workers employed in the salmon, herring, sardine, tuna, and related fisheries of the west coast. The members of this division are organized into local unions based in Puget Sound, Alaska, and southern California. These local unions have been in existence since the early thirties and in some instances earlier than that. Of interest is the fact that the organized fishermen on the west coast have been subjected, over the years, to criminal and civil actions under the antitrust laws. The general charge in the various proceedings has been that the historic practice of bargaining for a price—a practice as old as the fisheries in this country-places a fishermen's union or association in the position of being involved in a conspiracy to restrain trade. In effect, working fishermen, when they band together for mutual bargaining power to protect their livelihood, have been treated as a combination of oil companies engaged in fixing consumer prices. The effects of the antitrust prosecutions on the west coast have been most marked in the last 10 years. Fishery associations and unions have been destroyed or disorganized and many of the fishermen reduced to a status amounting to a condition of servitude. Thousands have been driven from the industry and those remaining are barely managing to hang on. It can also be said that the reduction in the strength of the fishery unions has been a contributing cause to the general state of economic deterioration affecting the industry as a whole. Legislation to clarify and define the collective-bargaining rights of fishermen is certainly long overdue. As you pointed out on the occasion of introducing S. 3530, fishermen should not be compelled to run the gauntlet of antitrust prosecution when, as producers, they act through a voluntary association in bargaining for a fair return on their labor. Certainly they are entitled to the same rights as farmers or workers generally. We strongly urge favorable consideration of S. 3530. Moreover, if there is insufficient time to act on this measure within the remaining weeks of the 85th Congress, we urge that it be reintroduced and actively pushed at the start of the 86th session. We commend you for introducing S. 3530 and for your longstanding interest in the welfare of fishermen and of the industry as a whole. Very truly yours, JEFF KIBRE, Washington Representative. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D. C., July 14, 1958. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: Your committee has requested a report on S. 3530, a bill to amend the Fisheries Cooperative Marketing Act. The act (15 U. S. C. 521-522) authorizes persons engaged in the fishing industry to act together in associations, corporate or otherwise, with or without capital stock, in collectively catching, preparing for market, processing, handling, and marketing in interstate and foreign commerce the products of such industry. S. 3530 would amend the act by the addition of a new section that would relieve any association of fishermen from liability under the provisions of the antitrust acts with respect to any activity incident to their catching, collecting, cultivating, processing, or marketing of aquatic products. While we are sympathetic to the problems of the fishing industry, we are unaware of the need for an amendment to the 1934 act of this kind, and we are constrained to observe that it would establish an unusual precedent. For these and other reasons, we do not recommend enactment of this proposed legislation. As the Department of Justice has indicated in its report on this proposed legislation, it is clear that the Congress intended that section 6 of the Clayton Act (15 U. S. C. 17) should dispel any doubt as to the legality of combinations of workingmen and agricultural producers into organizations for the purposes of mutual help but would not immunize such organizations from prosecution if they engaged in illegal activities. That Department further observes that there would appear to be no reason why fishermen or associations of fishermen should be exempt from the antitrust laws, that such proposed legislation would be discriminatory in singling out one industry to be benefited by exemption from application of the antitrust laws. We concur in these views. There are, of course, peculiar difficulties that fish and shellfish producers have in marketing their products. The Fisheries Cooperative Marketing Act, in recognition of such problems, has conferred certain advantages upon the industry and we believe this advantage should be pursued within the limits of existing law. Also, the Congress has enacted the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to provide further benefits to the industry and is at present considering other measures relating to the industry. The Bureau of the Budget has advised us that there is no objection to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, (Signed) Ross LEFFLER, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice concerning the bill (S. 3530) to amend the Fisheries Cooperative Marketing Act. The Fisheries Cooperative Marketing Act of 1934 (15 U. S. C. 521-522) authorizes persons engaged in the fishing industry to act together in associations, corporate or otherwise, with or without capital stock, in collectively catching, preparing for market, processing, handling, and marketing in interstate and foreign commerce the products of such industry. The bill would amend the act by adding a new paragraph thereto which would provide that no association of persons engaged in the fishery industry as fisherman catching, collecting, or cultivating aquatic products, and no officer, agent, employee, or member of any such association, shall be subject to the antitrust acts with respect to any activity incident to the catching, collecting, cultivating, processing, or marketing of aquatic products. The bill would provide that the term "antitrust acts" as used therein shall have the meaning given to such term by section 4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. It is understood that the bill was introduced in order "to give American fishermen the same treatment that is accorded to farmers under section 6 of the Clayton Act ***" and the Capper-Volstead Act of 1922. Section 6 of the Clayton Act (15 U. S. C. 17) provides in pertinent part as follows: "That the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Nothing contained in the antitrust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations, instituted for the purposes of mutual help, and not having capital stock or conducted for profit, or to forbid or restrain individual members of such organizations from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof; nor shall such organizations, or the members thereof, be held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, under the antitrust laws." It seems clear that section 6 of the Clayton Act does not immunize from the reach of the Sherman Act any and all acts of agricultural cooperatives (United States v. Borden Co., 308 U. S. 188 (1939); United States v. King, 250 F. 908 (Mass. 1916)). The Supreme Court summed up the effect of section 6 in the Borden case when it said at p. 204: "Section 6 of the Clayton Act, enacted in 1914, had authorized the formation and operation of agricultural organizations provided they did not have capital stock or were conducted for profit, and it was there provided that the antitrust laws should not be construed to forbid members of such organizations 'from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof.' They were not to be held illegal combinations." [Italic supplied.] Within 2 years after enactment of the Clayton Act, section 6 was construed in United States v. King, supra, not to confer upon agricultural cooperatives the privilege of acting in derogation of the Sherman Act. In overruling a demurrer based upon a claim of immunity from prosecution under the antitrust laws allegedly conferred by section 6 of the Clayton Act, the Court defined (at p. 910) the scope of section 6 in much the same way as did the Supreme Court in the subsequent Borden case, supra: “*** That act means, as I understand it, that organizations such as it describes are not to be dissolved and broken up as illegal, nor held to be combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade; but they are not privileged to adopt methods of carrying on their business which are not permitted to other lawful associations." [Italic supplied.] Thus, the section granted the right to agricultural cooperatives to make agreements with members for carrying out the legitimate objectives of such organizations which prior thereto might have been declared void as in restraint of trade. Manifestly, it was the intent of Congress not to regard agricultural cooperatives per se as combinations in restraint of trade. This view is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in Duplex Co. v. Deering (254 U. S. 443 (1920)), where the question of the exemption also granted to labor organizations by section 6 of the Clayton Act was involved. In Duplex Co. v. Deering, supra, the Supreme Court stated that "there is nothing in the section to exempt such an organization or its members from accountability where it or they depart from its normal and legitimate objects" (p. 469). Clearly, section 6 effected no change in the recognized principle that the Sherman Act applies equally to all persons, whether individuals, corporations or associations. If agricultural cooperatives restrain or monopolize commerce by activities having no direct or necessary relation to the formation, existence, or operation of such cooperative associations, they, like any other entity, would be subject to prosecution under the Sherman Act. It is clear from the legislative history of the Clayton Act that Congress intended that section 6 should dispel any doubt as to the legality of combinations of workingmen and agricultural producers into organizations for the purposes of mutual help but would not immunize such organizations from prosecution if they engaged in illegal activities. There would appear to be no reason why fishermen or associations of fishermen should be exempt from the antitrust laws. The proposed legislation would be discriminatory in singling out one industry to be benefited by exemption from the application of the antitrust laws. Moreover, it would tend to establish an undesirable precedent in that it would encourage other industries to seek the same immunities. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Department of Justice is opposed to the enactment of the bill. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, LAWRENCE E. WALSH, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your letter dated March 21, 1958, requesting an expression of the views of the Federal Trade Commission on S. 3530, 85th Congress, 2d session, a bill to amend the Fisheries Cooperative Marketing Act. The proposed bill would amend the Fisheries Cooperative Marketing Act by adding a third section which would exempt any fisheries cooperative or any officer, agent, employee, or member of any such association, from the provisions of the antitrust acts with respect to any activity incident to the catching, collecting, cultivating, processing, or marketing of aquatic products. The Fisheries Cooperative Marketing Act (15 U. S. C. 521-522) is modeled after the Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Act (7 U. S. C. 291–292). These acts permit groups of fisheries or farmers to form cooperative associations in order effectively to market their products. They are not permitted by these acts, however, to engage in practices considered to be monopolizing or in restraint of trade. In the case of United States v. Borden Co., et al. (308 U. S., 188, 204), the Supreme Court of the United States held that "the right of these agricultural producers thus to unite in preparing for market and in marketing their products, and to make the contracts which are necessary for that collaboration, cannot be deemed to authorize any combination or conspiracy with other persons in restraint of trade that these producers may see fit to devise." The amendment would, in effect, make inapplicable the Supreme Court's decision in the Borden case, insofar as fisheries cooperatives and their officers, agents, employees and members are concerned. There is, in our opinion, no reason for granting such an extreme exemption. In a recent case before the Commission, California Fish Canners Association, et al., docket 6623, the Commission ordered several cooperatives to cease and desist from performing certain acts and practices. Had the proposed bill been in effect, it would have prevented such action by the Commission. The Commission's order in United Fishermen of Alaska, et al., docket 6368, enjoined the respondent cooperative from combining with the various other respondents to perform acts and practices which would be "incident to the catching, collecting, cultivating, processing, or marketing" of the fish, and which would be exempted from Commission action under the provisions of the proposed bill. Still another case, in which the Commission ordered a cooperative and its members to cease and desist from uniting or combining with others to perform acts and practices which would have been immunized by the pending bill, is Puget Sound Salmon Canners, Inc., et al., docket 6376. The Congress has in the past extended a limited immunity to certain cooperative associations from the sanctions of the antitrust laws so that they can more effectively market their products. But it has not been congressional policy to extend this immunity to the extent that it would permit price-fixing, monopolization and other trade-restraining activities and agreements between cooperative associations and others outside the cooperatives. Activities which substantially restrain trade, tend to monopoly or injure competition should continue to be prohibited by law. For the above reasons, the Federal Trade Commission opposes the enactment of this legislation. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Further reference is made to your letter of March 21, 1958, acknowledged March 24, requesting our comments on S. 3530, 85th Congress, 2d session. S. 3530 would amend the Fisheries Cooperative Marketing Act to except associations of fishermen, together with the officers, agents, employees, and members of such associations, from the provisions of the antitrust acts with respect to any activity incident to the catching, collecting, cultivating, processing, or marketing of acquatic products. Other than the information contained in the statement made by the sponsor of this bill at the time of its introduction, we have no knowledge relative to the necessity for, or advisability of, legislation of this nature and, since the provisions of S. 3530 would not affect the functions or operations of this Office, we make no recommendation with respect to its enactment. Sincerely yours, FRANK H. WEITZEL, Assistant Comptroller General of the United States. |