1 July through November 1953.

2 $3,500,000 appropriated of which $350,000 was placed in a reserve.

Including 7 cases not previously reported.

535413

031012

2

8

647522

4877

297434

244222

495328

5

87 104 1113

37 36

20 $32

26

$4

104 108

47 134

15

30

113

15

23

20

105

34

17

13

24

11

2 Includes 2 cases carried as pending in prior years. Recent court decision determines cases should be closed.

32 cases dismissed on Government's motion. 43 cases dismissed on Government's motion.

$4 cases dismissed on Government's motion.

1 case dismissed without prejudice by agreement because of Bulwinkle Act.

71 case dismissed on Government's motion.

1 case dismissed on Government's motion.

1 case dismissed pursuant to agreement of parties.

10 22 investigations closed out resulted in 32 cases, both civil and criminal.

Senator DIRKSEN. Do you have a statement which we can put in the record?

Mr. BARNES. No, sir; I do not.

Senator DIRKSEN. Suppose, then, in your own way, you sketch for us a little what you anticipate to be your workload for the coming year, how it compares with the workload in the present year, and with what vigor and determination you will address yourself to everything in the antitrust field.

Mr. BARNES. Senator, the first thing that impressed itself upon me when I took over the Division last year was the fact that I had inherited a terrific backlog of untried cases. Therefore, the emphasis. in the last year has been on the disposition of old cases by trial or a satisfactory settlement. Any lawyer knows that the case that he to be prepared time and time again only to become inerti

that the private practitioner makes no money on. Similarly, the Government loses money if it has to prepare one of these big cases several times before it is finished.

SHERMAN AND CLAYTON ACTS

Senator DIRKSEN. I have two questions there, Judge Barnes. First, those cases involve mainly what statutes? Of course, the old Sherman Act as amended, and then the Clayton Act, I take it.

Mr. BARNES. Yes. We have the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act with its modifications and some 38 other statutes that have antitrust aspects.

Senator DIRKSEN. Yes.

Mr. BARNES. Frankly, it is the Sherman Act violations that are the larger cases, and present the greatest problem from the standpoint of disposing of them.

Senator DIRKSEN. When you took over that office, I assume you made some kind of a tabular inventory of the cases to see how old they were by years, how long they had been pending?

Mr. BARNES. Yes.

Senator DIRKSEN. What were the oldest cases pending when you took over?

OLD CASES FOUND ON HAND

Mr. BARNES. The oldest cases pending were what we characterized as those which had been instituted prior to 1946. We found 12 of those cases on the record, including 1 case that had been opened_in 1941, which involved the Alien Property Custodian, and the Bayer Co. This case had been reopened in 1952, which perhaps should not accurately be listed among these 12 cases. However, those 12 cases had been in the process of disposition for more than 6 years. I am happy to say that of those 12 cases, if we eliminate the 1 that was reopened, we have disposed of 8 of the 11. Included among the 3 that are still pending is 1 very important case involving General Electric, in which the major defendant has now agreed upon a consent decree. That is the so-called General Electric Fluorescent Lighting case.

At the time I took office two-thirds of our cases were more than 2 years old. At present we have a little less than 50 percent in that category.

Senator DIRKSEN. How old?

Mr. BARNES. More than 2 years old.

Senator DIRKSEN. So 50 percent of your cases are more than 2 years old?

Mr. BARNES. Yes, and 50 percent have been instituted within the last 2 years. We have those figures.

AVERAGE TIME PER ANTITRUST CASE

I might add, Senator, that in the examination of our workload and the effect of the continued delay in getting cases to trial the delay was not strictly the fault of any one connected with the action, that is, private attorneys, nor the Goverhment, because we get involved in courts that are overcrowded, and we are unable to obtain early trial