extra order from Congress or from one of the departments, we might take ona lot of people and then when the work is completed, we let them go. The scale is constantly changing as to the number of people we have in the economic division.

As to the estimated amount needed for the current fiscal year, 1920-21, the reduced appropriation for the current year has necessarily led to a reduction in the work and expenditure of the economic division. It is estimated that it will take about $372,000 to carry it through the present year, taking both salaries and travel expense, with about $330,000 for salaries alone. With only this amount of money, we expect to let some more people go within the next month, cutting down in that department, but we can not accomplish this work and get it through, I do nor believe, as fast as you want us to get it through, if we continue to cut to the quick as we have. We have ceetainly tiried to respond to Congress in the cutting down of our force and our estimates. The work, of course, is constantly expanding. To give you an idea of how the expenditures have grown, in 1916, we had an expenditure in the economic division of $173,000; in 1917, $217,000; 1918, $411,000, with an additional war work amount of $972,000; 1919, $284,000, with an additional war work amount of $990,000; 1920, $441,000; 1921, estimated, $372,000; and 1922, estimated, $400,000.

AUTHORITY TO MAKE SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you submitted to the comptroller the question whether you can expend money for making investigations demanded by the President or by either one of the two Houses of Congress, where the application is not made alleging there has been a violation of the antitrust acts?

Mr. THOMPSON. I do not believe we have ever done that.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I do not think you have any authority at all to spend a dollar of this appropriation in making special investigations at the request of one branch of Congress alone, unless the request comes specifically under the provisions of the law which provides that you shall make investigations only on request of the President or of either branch of Congress when the allegation is made that there. has been a violation of the antitrust acts. My contention is that you have no authority otherwise.

Mr. THOMPSON. I would willingly submit it to the comptroller. I do not think it has ever been done to my knowledge, but the position we take, Mr. Good, is that we are simply the offspring of Congress through legislative act and we must be responsive to its requests. The CHAIRMAN. You are the creature of that act.

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes; we are the creature of the act.

The CHAIRMAN. And one branch of Congress may tell you to make an investigation that will cost $100,000,000, but the other branch of Congress might say that you have no authority to do it, and that if it had come before that branch of Congress, the resolution would never have passed. That provision, it would seem to me, was a provision where quick action was desired on a violation of the law, not on the mere question of some information that the House might want; but we have gotten into the habit, and both branches of Congress have gotten into the habit of doing that, and I suppose they will continue in the habit as long as the Federal Trade Commission continues to violate the law.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Good, with all due consideration, I do not know that we are violating the law. I do not understand that one can interpret a statute as strictly as that.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, just read that provision as to what your powers are where the President or one House of Congress asks you to do something.

Mr. MAGEE. What would happen if the commission refused?

Mr. THOMPSON. That is the situation we are confronted with constantly.

The CHAIRMAN. What is going to happen to some of the officers in wet towns if they enforce the law? If it is the President who is refused, somebody's head might come off, but that is a small consideration to the principle of enforcing the law.

Mr. THOMPSON. Here is the law:

Upon the direction of the President or either House of Congress to investigate and report the facts relating to any alleged violation of the antitrust acts.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, that is it exactly. You are investigating everything; for instance, if one House of Congress asks you to investigate the price of shoes, as they have, without alleging that there was a violation of the Sherman antitrust law in the resolution, you investigate the cost of shoes; when the law says that you shall investigate that upon the allegation that there has been a violation of the Sherman antitrust law. My contention is that you are spending money that you have no right to spend.

Mr. THOMPSON. Of course, the comptroller has indirectly passed upon this; that is, we have never brought the question directly to him, but his office has checked and O. K'd our expenditures under this act.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not suppose the comptroller knows about the expenditures under that language.

Mr. MAGEE. That is a very pertinent inquiry, but, of course, neither the House nor the Senate ought to pass a resolution that is not within the terms of that provision.

Mr. THOMPSON. I presume that a court would hold that neither House would do a vain thing, and when they ask us to make an investigation it would be presumed that Congress knew there was a violation.

Mr. MAGEE. I have seen so many outbreaks of indignation that I was just wondering if the Federal Trade Commission refused to take cognizance of one of its resolutions what would happen in the House. Mr. DUGANNE. I believe Mr. Good had that matter up last year and suggested we ask Congress to give us the money when they gave us these special investigations.

INJUNCTION IN COAL CASE.

Mr. THOMPSON. Coming back to the subject of coal, I discussed the question of what our legal department had done to defend the economic department upon its finding of costs. We sincerely believe that if we had been able to continue finding and giving out unidentified costs of producing coal, and the extent of production, that such information would have tended to lessen the present reaction. We are proceeding with those cases and will push them to final hearing as fast as we can. We hope and believe that the Supreme Court will hold that we have the necessary jurisdiction.

Mr. MAGEE. Are you investigating coal now? Mr. THOMPSON. We have been investigating coal, but when this injunction came on we then asked the various companies whether they were willing to continue making voluntary reports. I may say that a great many companies were agreeable to keeping this up, but there was a group in a certain part of the United States that did not want them kept up, and they are the ones that enjoined us. Hence

we have those employed on this work on other reports and have ceased work on coal till the courts finally adjudicate the matter. The cost of the coal investigation for the fiscal year 1921 was $35,

128.58.

INJUNCTION IN STEEL CASE.

The next subject which we investigated, and on which we were stopped, was steel. The United States Steel Co. gave its report without any question, but some 20 of the other organizations, Midvale, Bethlehem, and others, enjoined us, and we are tied up by this injunction proceeding.

Mr. MAGEE. Did they enjoin you on the grounds suggested by the chairman?

Mr. THOMPSON. No; they enjoined on this ground: That the cost of producing steel was an intrastate matter and not an interstate, and hence we had no jurisdiction. On steel we have spent in the last year $26,660.40.

REPORTS ON MEAT-PACKING INDUSTRY.

On the meat-packing industry we have been continuing the getting out of our reports, gathering voluminous data, and we have issued this year The Packers in Grocery Food, The Profits of the Packers, Wholesale Marketing of Foods, and Private Car Lines. We also turned over all of our evidence against the packers to the Department of Justice, and the Department of Justice began a proceeding in court and a consent decree is now being considered by the court. We then examined the subject of southern meat prices with respect particularly to hogs. There was a complaint that there was a discrimination in the price of hogs of the southern product.

Mr. MAGEE. Did that come up from Tennessee?

Mr. THOMPSON. It came up from Georgia, as I recall. They were known as peanut hogs, that is, hogs fed on peanuts. That report is completed and has been turned over to Congress, and the cost for the fiscal year on the examination in 1920 under that particular item was $4,106.70.

LUMBER INVESTIGATION.

We were making an investigation of lumber and proceeded just as we had with steel and coal. We organized a division and were getting out monthly reports when we were tied up in both coal and steel injunctions. We then gave up lumber because we saw a lawsuit coming and thought it would be wise to turn our forces over to some other work. The cost of the lumber work was $28,860.76.

I may say here, Mr. Good, in response to your question, that in practically every one of these examinations that we are making of this type we are constantly seeking for monopolistic control, if there be one.

The CHAIRMAN. You have a perfect right to do that on your own initiative. The law provides for that.

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. There does not have to be an allegation of a violation of law.

REPORTS.

CANNED FOODS.

Mr. THOMPSON. On canned foods a draft report has been submitted to the commission for publication. That means it will be out within several weeks. Our expense on that was $3,075.30.

GRAIN.

We have been making, as I have said, a grain report. There will be approximately four volumes out in a very short time. They will be sent to Congress. The cost of that was $47,797.14.

MILK.

We have been examining into milk and making an investigation of that article, and have given information to the Government through that examination which will call for a refund to the Government of $200,000 over the prices claimed by various companies that delivered milk to the Government during the war. For the fiscal year 1920 this work cost $34,004.27.

CALIFORNIA OIL.

Then we have a report about ready covering the California oil situation, and the midwest field in Wyoming. It is now before the commission. I should also have said as to the report on milk that that report is before the commission. The California oil report will be out in a very short time. We have spent on it $22,645.40.

SUGAR.

The extraordinary advance in the price of sugar last year led to an inquiry from the House as to the causes thereof. The report of this investigation is with the Public Printer and will be submitted to Congress as soon as it convenes. The cost of this inquiry for the fiscal year 1920 was $17,359.80.

COMBED COTTON YARNS.

We have also made an examination of combed cotton yarns and our cost there was $9,456.87.

COMMERCIAL FEEDS.

We have made an examination into commercial feeds. That report will soon be submitted to the commission. On that item there has been spent $15,414.50.

SHOES.

We then made an examination on shoes, which you have referred to, and that examination cost $15,740.50.

FARM IMPLEMENTS.

The cost of the farm implements report is $21,031.13 for the fiscal

year.

LEATHER AND SHOES.

We also completed a report on leather and shoes. Most of that report was published in the summer of 1919, but the cost for the fiscal year 1920 was $192.53.

Mr. MAGEE. The high cost in that case was due to the scarcity of leather, was it not?

Mr. THOMPSON. There were a number of items there, but in our report we show the profit that was made in the different stages, from the producer to the consumer. 'One of the items which I recall was the price was set to some extent by the demand in foreign markets which was very great. That was one reason for an abnormal price here, because a tremendous quantity of our shoes were going to Europe.

FUEL OIL.

We have made an examination of fuel oil which cost us this year $17,256.67.

COST OF COTTON GAUZE.

Then we have the item of cotton goods. The manufacturers of cotton gauze supplying the War Department agreed that the dispute as to price should be settled by a determination of the cost of production by the commission. This was done and a report made to the War Department on which basis the matter was settled. The examination cost us $6,894.91. I suppose I am taking up too much of your time, but I have a list here of all the reports we have issued. The CHAIRMAN. If you will just put that statement in the record, with the cost of each one.

Mr. THOMPSON. We have the costs in the annual report.

EXHIBIT A.-List of reports published by and submitted to the Public Printer for publication by the Federal Trade Commission during the fiscal year 1920 with the cost thereof.