I assumed, Mr. Orrick, that you testified under oath. However, I believe that your original oath when you took the Antitrust office makes it compulsory for you to do something about big oil's predatory practices, particularly in the Baltimore area. Your acts of omission certainly qualify us in asking that you resign for failure to perform your sworn duties. Very truly yours, SAVON GAS STATION$, We had another article in the Baltimore Sun editorial on August 22, 1964, which quoted a new trend in the antitrust policy that was described by Mr. Orrick. And he wasn't going to wait until complaints were received, he was going to move in and do something about it. The article stated, and I quote: A new trend in antitrust policy was first described by William H. Orrick, Jr., Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, in a speech last January in New York. In the past, he said, the Antitrust Division had behaved much like a district attorney in criminal matters; it had waited until complaints were received before taking action. Now, said Mr. Orrick, the Division was going to show an active "concern" in all the major areas of American industry. It would "scrutinize" situations in each area "carefully." So I wrote and asked him about it. I said: Now, Mr. Orrick, have you honestly and truly done so? Haven't you overlooked Federal Civil Case 12952 filed in Baltimore on May 16, 1961? (Delway v. Cities Service). Have you not received complaints on the predatory practices of big oil in the Baltimore area? (Gulftane, Tunock, et al.). What did you do with the complaints concerning the activities of Conoco, Cities Service, and others in the Bogus Oil setups? (Kayo). What steps have you taken to protect the little oil businessmen from the big snake-octopus Colonial Pipeline gang, in contrast to the dictim of the Supreme Court's decision? And then I asked: How did your agency hamper our pleas and efforts to get a Federal grand jury investigation started in Baltimore? What now, little man? That was a classic. But that is going to be part of another per se proceeding, and I would rather not comment on it now. We now get up to the Colonial Pipeline. On August 31, 1964, I wrote to Mr. Orrick and I quoted the Philadelphia National Bank case (374 U.S. 321): Hon. WILLIAM H. ORRICK, AUGUST 31, 1964. DEAR MR. ORRICK: In the U.S. v. Phila. Nat'l Bank (374 U.S. 321), the Supreme Court said: "This intense congressional concern with the trend toward concentration warrants dispensing, in certain cases, with elaborate proof of market structure, market behavior, or probable anticompetitive effects. Specifically, we think that a merger which produces a firm controlling an undue percentage share of the relevant market, and results in a significant increase in the concentration of firms in that market, is so inherently likely to lessen competition substantially that it must be enjoined in the absence of evidence clearly showing that the merger is not likely to have such anticompetitive effects." We believe sincerely that the Colonial Pipeline gang's marketing share percentage in the Baltimore area threatens undue concentration and meets the test of presumptive illegality as declared in the Philadelphia Bank case. In fact, their predatory tactics, destructive gasoline pricing methods, unfair marketing competition have already given them the lion's share of the unpatrolled and uncontrolled Baltimore marketplace. Quite frankly, why you have permitted the big oil monopolists to swap, barter, exchange, and loan petroleum products freely among themselves at this late date is truly a mystery. Continental Oil is still operating the bogus oil companies-Kayo in gasoline and Onco in fuel oils-why? Justice delayed is justice denied, especially horrendous when it is accomplished by supposedly honest and dedicated public trust officials. Very truly yours, SAVON GAS STATIONS, Still on this Colonial pipeline snake, I again wrote to Mr. Orrick, this time on September 14, 1964: Hon. WILLIAM H. ORRICK, Department of Justice, SEPTEMBER 14, 1964. DEAR MR. ORRICK: "Certainly the formation of a joint venture *** would substantially lessen competition--as between (the founders *. This would be true whether they were in actual or potential competition with each other and even though the new corporation was formed to create a wholly new enterprise. Realistically, the parents would not compete with their progeny *** actual restraints need not be proved." Justice Tom C. Clark, U.S. v. Penn-Olin; June 22. 1964. Notwithstanding the above law, the Colonial pipeline gang is already operating in the Baltimore area, and the bogus progeny (Kayo gas) of Continental Oil is selling gasoline at 2 cents below the unbranded market in the Baltimore Park Heights area-meeting or beating competition,' Mr. Orrick? And for an activity that gets $6,854,000 of the taxpayers' money annually to enforce the antitrust laws, can you honestly say that you are not guilty of lethargy, laches, and laxity insofar as the little oil independent businessman is concerned? How about our rights? SAVON GAS STATIONS, I have some more Supreme Court decisions, the Brennan decision, the remarks of Tom Clark, which I would like to refer to by saying that two great minds run together here. I would like to read it: "I believe that these 'bare bones' really lay bare one of the most brazen violations of the Sherman Act that I have experienced in a quarter of a century * * The net effect of the remand is, therefore, but to extend for perhaps an additional 5 years White Motors' enjoyment of the fruits of its illegal action." Justice Tom C. Clark, White Motors v. United States, October 1962. "On a national basis, approximately 1 percent of Humble's sales of motor gasoline is to rebranders." United States v. Tidewater-Humble, April 14, 1964. At the moment a new and bitter price war is being waged against the little oil men in the Baltimore area by the big oil monopolist. Your delaying tacties of not doing anything to help the independents in their battle for survival is downright brutal. We cannot wait a day to receive your Department's long-overdue help with the facts presently in your hands. How long will you permit the big oil monopolists to visit their arrogance, attrition, and affluence on us in the unpatrolled marketplace with controlled supplies and administered prices? 1 Moore v. Mead (348 U.S. 115); Porto v. American Tobacco (30 F. 2d 243); Standard v. U.S. (221 U.S. 1). And I think it is the current issue of Consumer's Report that quotes Chairman Dixon as saying: Even the most stupid lawyer knows that he can start an action and delay any kind of remedy against his client or for his client over a period of a few years. What I am alluding to here and I would like to pause to take on the constituted majority of this Commission, where in one fell swoop Mr. Elman and his two associates washed out four cases that reminded me as an independent oilman of what the late great President Roosevelt said when Italy went into the war against the Americans. Also, it was a rotten decision, I think. It hurt every little oilman. And I do hope that some kind-some time soon when you reflect upon your decisions that you made in those cases that you will remember that 60,000 stations changed hands every year; and the cries of anguish that these people can create, their families, you should remember that. By letter dated September 23, 1964, I again wrote to Mr. Orrick and quoted res ipsa loquitur. This is the story of the law officials attending with approximately 800 persons a dinner and reception where top officials of such concerns as the Continental Oil Co., Humble Oil Co., Tennessee & Texas Eastern Gas Transmission Lines, Gulf Oil, Gulf Sulphur, and ranking contracting and law firms in the Houston area were present. As one Texas politician said: "A man could get elected president of the world with the money and influence of these people behind him." The Humphrey dinner in Houston, Tex., in 1964 : RES IPSA LOQUITER-HIGH OFFICIALS ATTEND Among the approximately 800 persons at the dinner and reception were top officials of such concerns as Continental Oil, Humble Oil, Tennessee & Texas Eastern Gas Transmission, Gulf Sulphur, and ranking contracting, law, and other firms in the Houston area. As one Texas politician said, "A man could get elected president of the world with the money and influence of these people behind him." And may the soul of equal justice under law rest in peace. Now, that is what an independent faces. I remember talking to Chief Judge Thomsen, in Baltimore, and I pointed out to him the fact that the independent oilmen have suffered dire consequences; he wouldn't talk to me without getting a lawyer. So I took my house counsel in, who was soon to be appointed as judge, and nothing was done to hurt his position. But I did get an interview. And I reminded Judge Thomsen that what I would like to do was talk to a grand jury, that I had five or six people, interested dealers, who wanted to be subpenaed into that room and wanted to talk to the grand jury. Between Joe Tydings and Judge Thomsen we never did get that jury. We couldn't even get in to see him. That was a denial of our individual rights; only because I filed the petition in the name of Harry Waller, president of A. & R. Transportation, I was knocked out of the box. But beyond that Judge Thomsen should have looked to the substance and not the form. That would have been much more equitable. But you will say, well, why didn't you get a lawyer, you had a damned fool for a client. The point is, Mr. Chairman, that it costs a lot of money to get a good lawyer in this gray area; and antitrust is a gray area. Of the five or six men of the status of John Henry Lewin, Vernon Eney, in the Baltimore area; over here you can't get a good lawyer for under $50,000 or $60,000. And no independent has ever made that kind of money in 5 years, let alone 1 year, if he were honest and told you the truth. And we don't have the money to get one. So we must of necessity have to go to our Government for help. And in this book it says, this was to protect the individual. Thisthat is what Mr. Patman says. And we have a wonderful new book that is up to date. I read it instead of newspapers, because we have a strike over there now. And it makes good reading. But Earl Kintner wrote this book. And I think it is wonderful. I quote from the book in here, because it affects Tom Clark. As you will see, there is a continuity between the readings. But if we are going to get help, you are the men to help us, you and your Commission. But if you are going to be handcuffed by a judge who says you are outspoken, but still permits a man to come in and defend Sun Oil right in this room, right in this case-I forget the name, the lawyer for Sun Oil-he was formerly with the Department of Justice. Chairman DIXON. It was Mr. Emmerglick. Mr. WALLER. Mr. Emmerglick. He would work for the Department of Justice, talk to independents like me, and then go to work for the business on the other side of the street. I guess that is legal. Because when you are bucking the lawyers and the judges, you are bucking city hall. But I have the right to speak, and that I will do. I think it is wrong. The little independent oilmen ought to have a place to go that we can give statements to and not to have somebody 3 years later working for the big oil companies, Peyton Ford, John Sennett, let's call them all, and go all the way back to Mr. Abe Fortas' partner, the elder gentleman, Thurman Arnold. But we don't know where to go. We are without a home. Our own Government can't help us. You have got dedicated men in this building with the power of subpena, a tremendous lever. But we can't get any help. I directed these matters to Orrick, but I should add Mr. Elman to them, and the madam, and Mr. Reilly. We did not get a decision in these cases. We were knocked out of the box administratively, and I question whether that is right. I wish there were people here that could take an appeal and find a way to help us to get an appeal, even down to a proceeding. In the light of the last remark I made about the lawyers, "An ear to the ground, an eye to the future," I quote below letter of October 8, 1964, to Mr. Orrick, where I said: DEAR MR. ORRICK: Once again we are able to point out a glaring fault of your most inept and inert Department, subsidized by the poor duped average American citizen to the tune of $6,854,000.00 in 1964. The attached news release concerns your former associate, Mr. William C. McPike, who handled the U.S. v. Hertz (No. 145-364, S.D. N.Y.) case, and now works for Avis. How can little businessmen trust your activity with confidential information? What protection do your files have? How can lawyers do an honest job while looking for a new one? A senatorial investigation of your Department would be in order to determine the number of freeloaders, hitchhikers, and transients hibernating there, pending their employment with the multinamed law firms retained by the monopolists. The stench of your activity pervades the Department, so we suggest you go back to California to permit the fulfillment of the axium "Sunlight is the best of disinfectants and electric lighth the most efficient policeman." Please go home. Hon. NICHOLAS KATZENBACH, Washington, D.C.: DECEMBER 28, 1964. "The leading lawyers of the United States have been engaged mainly in supporting the claims of corporations; often in endeavoring to evade or nullify the extremely crude laws by which the legislators sought to regulate the power or curb the excesses of corporations. Instead of holding a position of independence between the wealthy and the people, prepared to curb the excesses of either, able lawyers have, to a large extent, allowed themselves to become adjuncts of great corporations and have neglected the obligations to use their powers for the protection of the people. "It is true that at the present time the lawyer does not hold as high a position with the people as he held 75 or, indeed, 50 years ago; but the reason is not the lack of opportunity. We hear much of the 'corporation lawyer' and far too little of the 'people's lawyer.' The great opportunity of the American bar is and will be to stand again as it did in the past, ready to protect, also, the interests of the people." Justice LOUIS D. BRANDEIS. "The real test of a good lawyer, especially one holding public office, is that he will expose the iniquities of men in high governmental and financial places and protect the rights of all citizens, especially the oppressed poor." ANON. Your $6,854,000 Antitrust Division can be characterized as "A failure of a mission for the big oil monopolists operate in the most predatory manner in the unpatrolled marketplace with bogus oil companies, administered prices, controlled oil supplies, joint venture oil pipelines and terminating facilities, etc., in defiance of laws and Supreme Court decisions. The image of all lawyers is tarnished by the acts of omission of big oil sycophants in your Antitrust Division inviting ridicule and abuse harkening back to the depression thirties with the Marx brothers parody of "Shyster, Beagle & Ravelli" plus the new Washington members "Fixit & Grabit." How can little oil businessmen expect "equal justice under law" when there exists "a paid press, kept radio, timid television, and a restrained judiciary"? As long as "politicians appoint judges" we must protect the bench from becoming warped or crooked by having honest bar association presidents and their committees to certify only the best qualified men, freed from historical entangling alliances and vested interests, for it is common knowledge in the Chesapeake Bay country "that a fish first starts to stink at the head." Please govern yourself accordingly. Most respectfully submitted. SAVON GAS STATION$, Mr. WALLER. You might think it is harsh, but after you get knocked around and you are in this business for 36 years and you see your lifeblood go down the drain, and every time you have a problem with a major oil company they say, "Let legal handle it, we're not worried"— they don't have to be worried, why should they be worried? When you see pictures in the New York Times of our President-look at the lawyers on that front page, and look at the big oil contacts they have [exhibiting newspaper]. They don't have Clark Clifford on there for nothing. It is a sad commentary on the American way of life when the newspapers can report that Mr. Turner was just put in the Depart |