Aluminum Investigations

The question of whether the Aluminum Co. of America is a monopoly and whether it has engaged in illegal practices, last week brought forth action on three fronts. The reason the case has prominence and attracts attention is of course that Andrew W. Mellon is a large stockholder in the company and was formerly a director.

In Pittsburgh the Federal Trade Commission held hearings in an attempt to prove that the Aluminum Co. had violated the law. The company offered the Commission access to all its contracts with domestic and foreign firms, but when it came to divulging the list of its stockholders the company balked.

In Washington Senator Cummins made public the conclusions of the Department of Justice as to the advisability of prosecuting the Aluminum Co. in accordance with a former complaint of the Trade Commission. That complaint charged that the Aluminum Co. had 1) delayed shipments to competitors in order to injure them, 2) furnished defective metal for the same reason, 3) discriminated among competitors and subsidiaries in fixing its prices, 4) hindered its competitors from enlarging their business. The Department of Justice declared that from its own investigation these complaints could not be shown to be true, and the evidence contradicted them:

"The facts developed in this investigation show that it was a wise precaution on the part of the Department to make a further investigation of the charges alleged by the Commission to exist. It now appears that, had the Department filed a citation for contempt when the report was received, it would have been wholly impossible to sustain the charges appearing therein.

"With reference to the Commission's charges as to delays in deliveries and defective metal shipments above referred to, the evidence is clear that the principal cooking-utensil subsidiary of the Aluminum Co. of America and a company in which it has a substantial financial interest suffered equally with other companies in this regard.

"In respect to the charge of discriminations in prices, the evidence discloses that many customers received as great or greater discounts as those enjoyed by a company in which the Aluminum Co. owned a substantial interest."

In the Senate, Mr. Walsh of Montana presented a resolution authorizing the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate the Aluminum Co. and report to the Senate whether legal action against it was warranted. He contended in a four-hour speech that the company was an arrant monopoly and that the Department of Justice had not properly investigated it. The minority of the Judiciary Committee supported the Department of Justice and opposed the proposed investigation on the ground that it was unconstitutional, saying:

"If we persist in the practice of reviewing the conclusions of the Department of Justice with respect to criminal prosecutions or even civil suits, the Senate will be confronted at every session with demands for inquiries into alleged crimes against the United States wherein the Department of Justice has either secured an indictment or failed to secure an indictment and for failure to bring civil actions; and the attempts to direct the President to appoint a lawyer who is known to be in harmony with the view of the Senate will become so frequent that the execution of the laws will be practically transferred from the President to Congress.

"This new conception of the powers and duties of the Senate may end in a substantial recall of judicial decisions by the vote of both houses, accompanied, of course, by an effective co-operation of the Senate in the exercise of its functions to advise and consent to the appointment of judicial officers.

"We deny the right or power of the Senate to try this case."