Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T03:59:26.317Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Business, Antitrust Policy, and the Industrial Board of the Department of Commerce, 1919

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

Robert F. Himmelberg
Robert F. Himmelberg
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of History, Fordham University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A mass of rhetoric proclaimed the Industrial Board as a Progressive measure to forestall a post-World War I depression through governmental price manipulation. After a closer look at the personalities and policies involved, Professor Himmelberg argues that the Board was, actually, an effort by organized business groups to force antitrust revision upon the Wilson administration.

Type
Articles
Information
Business History Review , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , Spring 1968 , pp. 1 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Though usually overlooked entirely in surveys, the Board has received brief attention in specialized works such as Joseph Dorfman's, The Economic Mind in American Civilization, IV (New York, 1959), 12–13Google Scholar, from which the quotation above is taken, and Gilbert C. Fite's George N. Peek and the Fight for Farm Parity (Norman, 1954), 33–36.Google ScholarHowenstine, E. Jay Jr., “The Industrial Board, Precursor of the N.R.A.: The Price Reduction Movement after World War I,” Journal of Political Economy, LI (June, 1943), 235–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar, is the only detailed treatment. Though almost entirely an analysis of the Board's economic theory and technique, the article briefly touches on and anticipates the interpretation of the Board's significance presented here.

2 Wiebe, Robert H., Businessmen and Reform: A Study of the Progressive Movement (Cambridge, Mass., 1963), 45–47, 79–81, 137–41Google Scholar; Johnson, Arthur M., “Theodore Roosevelt and the Bureau of Corporations,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLV (March, 1959), 571–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem., “Antitrust Policy in Transition, 1908: Ideal and Realty,” ibid., XLVIII (December, 1961), 424–34; Kolko, Gabriel, The Triumph of Conservatism (New York, 1963), 65–89Google Scholar, 113–38, 255–78.

For antitrust in the 1930's see Hawley, Ellis W., The New Deal and the Problem of Monopoly (Princeton, 1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. chaps. 1–3; and Galambos, Louis, Competition or Cooperation?: The Emergence of a National Trade Association (Baltimore, 1966)Google Scholar, chaps. 7–11.

3 See the present author's “The War Industries Board and the Antitrust Question in November, 1918,” Journal of American History, LII (June, 1965), 59–74.Google Scholar

4 “Minutes of the War Emergency and Reconstruction Congress under Auspices of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America” (typescript, Chamber of Commerce Library, Washington, D.C.), 229–31.Google Scholar

5 The questions submitted in the referendum are explained in the Chamber's publication, Referendum No. 26. On the Report of the Federal Trade Committee of the Chamber Regarding Trust Legislation. February 1, 1919. The results of the voting are given in Referendum Number Tioenty-Six, Special Bulletin, April 11, 1919. Wheeler, , “Foundations for the Future,” Nation's Business, VII (June, 1919), 17–18Google Scholar; American Industries, XIX (January, 1919), 12–15Google Scholar; NAM, Annual Convention (1919), 134–56, 285, 324–51.

6 “Report Covering Activities of the Industrial Cooperation Service, January 1, 1919 to March 15, 1919”; John Cutter (Acting Chief, Industrial Cooperation Service) to Redfield, May 15, 1919; both in file 78253/1, Record Group 40, General Records of the Department of Commerce, National Archives. (Hereafter cited as RG 40.)

7 Redfield to each of thirteen proposed “industrial advisors,” December 3, 1918, file 67009/72, ibid.

8 Peek to William Butterworth, December 20, 1918, Peek Papers (Western Historical Manuscripts Collection, University of Missouri).

9 Ritter to Peek, November 6, 1918, file 21A–A2, Record Group 61, Records of the War Industries Board, National Archives. (Hereafter cited as RG 61,) Peek to Baruch, December 17, 1919, ibid; Bush to Redfield, February 11, 1919, file 67009/72, RG 40; Redfield, , “The Letter Killeth —,” Nation's Business, VII (June, 1919), 30–31.Google Scholar

10 Peek gave this account of the Board's origin in remarks during the “Meeting of the United States Industrial Board … with Representatives of the Cement Industry,” March 4, 1919, Records of the Industrial Board (hereafter cited as RInB), RG 40.

11 For this outline of the February conferences, see Redfield to Wilson, April 15, 1919, Wilson Papers (Library of Congress), and “Conference, February 5, 1919, Office of the Secretary of Commerce,” file 78484, RG 40.

12 Redfield to Wilson, February 6, 1919, RInB, RG 40.

13 Glass to Wilson, February 6, 1919, ibid.

14 What was said and what understandings were reached at the February conferences later became a question hotly contested between the Industrial Board and its enemies, which included Secretary Glass and Hines. Ritter's version of what was said at the February 3 meeting gives no clue that he suggested a definite price-fixing method for carrying out his scheme. But Ritter's description of the conference can be found only in printed form, in the History of the Industrial Board that Peek assembled and published privately in 1919 as the parting shot in the controversy between the Board and its critics. The document reproduced in Peek's history is alleged to be a memorandum of the February 3 conference, written by Ritter. The document's reliability is slight; first, because its language is ambiguous and, second, because no verification for its authenticity can be found in the papers of the Industrial Board or in any of the other collections examined in the course of research for this study.

The statement above that Ritter offered two versions of his plan on February 3, the first of which was sharply rejected, is based on a letter from George O. May, one of the Treasury officials present at the meeting, to Peek of March 26, 1919, in the RInB, RG 40. Hines' comments upon the conference, of which the quote above is a part, support May's remarks, and were written the same day as the conference in a memorandum for T. C. Powell, in file M23, Record Group 14, Records of the Railroad Administration, National Archives. (Hereafter cited as RG 14.)

15 Baruch to Wilson, February 11, 1919 Wilson Papers; Wilson to Redfield, February 13, 1919, RInB, RG 40.

16 Redfield to Wilson, April 15, 1919, Wilson Papers; Tumulty to Wilson, January 30, 1919, Tumulty Papers (Library of Congress).

17 Baruch to Wilson, February 11, 1919; Charles M. Schwab to Wilson, February 12, 1919; both in Wilson Papers. Wilson may have been informed, too, by trusted associates, that the Senate Majority leader, Gilbert M. Hitchcock, and other Democratic leaders, warmly supported the plan. See Clarence Wooley to Vance McCormick, February 7, 1919, in “Readjustment, 1919,” file in Secretary's File, Record Group 56, General Records of the Treasury, National Archives. (Hereafter cited as RG 56.)

18 Redfield to Peek, February 18, 1919, file 78484, RG 40. Ritter's argument in favor of Peek as chairman is contained in a long document in the RInB, ibid., titled “Memorandum of Mr. Ritter's Views In Reference … to the Work of the Industrial Board.” Though undated, its contents show it was written between February 6 and 12, 1919.

19 See William Butterworth (a member of the Chamber's Board of Directors) to Peek, February 27, 1919, Peek Papers; the Chamber's War Service Bulletin No. 49, March 10, 1919, and Elliot Goodwin (the Chamber's Executive Secretary) to Peek, March 5, 1919, RInB, RG 40.

The NAM's President, Stephen C. Mason, offered his organization's cooperation in a letter to Redfleld of February 27, 1919, ibid. The Governors' Conference endorsement came through a resolution offered by Governor Cox of Ohio. See the second volume of the meeting's mimeographed proceedings. Conference with the President of the United States and the Secretary of Labor by the Governors of the States and Mayors of Cities, …. March 5, 1919, p. 627ff. An unsigned copy of a letter to Cox of March 6, in the RInB, probably written by Ritter judging from the style, thanks the Governor for securing the Conference's endorsement, but it is not clear whether Cox had acted independently or at Ritter's request.

20 “Meeting of the … Industrial Board … with Representatives of the Cement Industry,” and “Meeting … with Representatives of the Brick Industry,” both dated March 4, 1919, RInB, RG 40. The clearest statement of the Board's decision not to press for drastic price reductions was given at the brick conference by Ernest T. Trigg, a member of the executive board of the National Federation of Construction Industries, whom Peek had asked to assist in the Board's contacts with building materials industries and who figured prominently at many of its negotiating sessions. It was the Board's intention, Trigg said, to “establish confidence in the mind of the buying public in existing values of materials. After all, isn't it a fact that the condition of business is almost entirely a question of the condition of men's minds. … If the public feels markets are stable, and that, if anything, advances come and not declines, then we usually have good buying.”

21 Peek to Glass, April 3, 1919, with attached statement of the argument made at a Cabinet meeting the day previous, in ibid.

22 “Meeting of the Industrial Board with Representatives of the Lumber Industry,” March 22, 1919; “Meeting … with the Representatives of the Cement Manufacturing Industry,” March 24, 1919; “Industrial Board … Hearing of the Box Board Manufacturers,” March 26, 1919; “Meeting … with Representatives of the Builders’ Hardware Industry,” March 26, 1919; “Meeting Between the Industrial Board … and Coal Operators,” March 26, 1919; and “Meeting … with Representatives of the Glass Industry,” March 27, 1919, all in ibid. Symbolic concessions were strongly desired however; at the cement conference on the 24th the Board went to great lengths, threatening the industry with exposure as uncooperative, in order to extract a trifling reduction, which it accepted, of 5 to 15 cents per barrel.

23 This reconstruction of the justification the Board made to itself of its policies is implied at many points in the statements of Board spokesmen in the transcripts of conferences cited in notes 21 and 23. Perhaps the best indication that the Board's reasoning was such as is outlined in the paragraph above, however, is the discussion recorded in the transcripts of the steel conference of March 19–20. Verbatim minutes survive only for the morning session of March 19 and the afternoon sessions of the 20th and are titled “Meeting … with Representatives of the Iron and Steel Industry,” March 19, 1919; “Report of Conference of the Industrial Board with Representatives of the Iron and Steel Industry,” March 20, 1919, and “Meeting [of March 20] Reconvened at 4:40 P.M. …” All transcripts in ibid.

24 Peek's belief that Hines was committed to accept the Board's prices appears utterly genuine in the various statements he made on the subject in February and early March; see, e.g., Peek to Baruch, February 24, 1919, Peek Papers.

25 A copy of Peek's letter to Colver of March 10 has not been located, but judging from the references to it in Colver's letter to Peek of March 21, 1919, RInB, RG 40, the text was substantially the same as that of Peek's letter to Palmer of March 18, 1919, ibid.

26 The quotes are from “Meeting with the Iron and Steel Industry,” on the morning of March 19, 1919, ibid.

27 Ibid., and the additional transcripts cited in note 24. To sustain the new prices, to make it easier for the industrialists to maintain the price understanding they had reached, Peek agreed, at the late afternoon meeting on the 20th, to include in the Board's announcement approving the prices, the statement that the public should not expect to obtain lower prices within the calendar year. In maintaining the prices. Peek told the steel representatives, the statement would be “the biggest asset” that a steel company could “possibly have. I don't know what I wouldn't have given in times past if in my own business I could say that the government of the United States says this is as low a price as you could get. I think I could get along with half the number of salesmen and less than half the advertising.”

28 Memorandum for Hines by Powell, March 19, March 22, March 25, April 2, 1919, file M23, RG 14; Lewis B. Reed to Peek, May 2, 1919, RInB, RG 40; “Meeting of the Industrial Board,” March 21 (1:30 p.m.), 1919, ibid.

29 Memorandum for Palmer by Todd, March 24, 1919, file 200515, RG 60; memorandum of a conversation with the Attorney General by a subordinate, identified only by the initials M.C.B., for Hines, March 27, 1919, file M23; RG 14.

30 Colver to Peek, March 21, 1919 RInB, RG 40.

31 Citations for transcripts of these meetings are given in note 23. See especially transcripts of the coal and box board conferences.

32 Peek to Baruch, March 24, 1919, Peek Papers.

33 Memorandum for John Skelton Williams, by Hines, March 25, 1919; Hines to Ritter, March 25, 1919, both in file M23, RG 14. Iron Age, CIII, 14 (April 3, 1919), 903–904.

34 Redfield to Wilson, March 27, 1919; Garfield to Wilson, March 27, 1919, both in Wilson Papers. Powell to Hines, March 28, 1919, file M23, RG 14.

35 John Skelton Williams to Hines, March 21, 1919; Memorandum for Hines, by Powell, March 26, 1919, file M23, RG 14.

36 The quotation attributed to Hines is taken from a copy of a memorandum in the M23 file, RG 14, which though unsigned and undated, appears by reason of the documents filed with it and style, to be a memorandum by Hines for an associate, probably Williams, written on about March 25, 1919. See also “Memorandum of Conference in Office of Comptroller Williams … March 26, 1919,” by Powell; and Williams to Hines, April 2, 1919, both in ibid.

37 Glass to Wilson, March 27, 1919, in “Industrial Board” file, Secretary's File, RG 56.

38 Powell to Hines, March 28, 1919, file M23, RG 14, for a report of the discussion between Glass and Hines' representatives.

39 Tumulty to Wilson, March 27, 1919, Wilson Papers.

40 Hines to Peek, April 4, 1919, enclosing copy of Hines to Glass, April 4, 1919, in RInB, RG 40. New York Journal of Commerce, April 7, 1919. Russell Leffingwell to Glass, April 8, 1919, “Industrial Board” file, Secretary's File, RG 56.

41 Franz Neilson to Palmer, March 22, 1919; Palmer to Todd, March 24, 1919; Todd to Palmer, March 24, 1919; Palmer to Todd, March 26, 1919, enclosing copy of Palmer to Neilson of same date, file 200515, RG 60. Todd to Palmer, April 15, 1919, file 60/138/0, RG 60. The text of Palmer's opinion was released after the Industrial Board was dissolved and widely published. See, e.g., Iron, Age, CIII (May 15, 1919), 1304–1306.Google Scholar

42 Peek to Glass, April 3, 7, 1919; “Memorandum For the Secretary of the Treasury,” by Redfield, April 7, 1919, both in RInB, RG 40.

43 Redfield to Wilson, April 11, 1919, Wilson Papers.

44 Baruch to Wilson, April 15, 1919; Wilson to Tumulty, April 18, 1919, transmitting cables for Hines and Redfield, Wilson Papers.

45 Glass to Wilson, April 14, 1919, copy in Tumulty Papers.

46 Wilson to Tumulty, April 21, i919 (conveying a message for Redfield); Wilson to Glass, April 21, 1919; Tumulty Papers. Tumulty to Wilson, April 22, 1919, Wilson Papers.

47 Robert P. Lovett to Hines, April 24, 1919; file M23, RG 14. “Meeting … with the Representatives of the Railroad Administration …, “April 24, 1919, RInB, RG 40.

48 Reed to Redfield, April 30, 1919, ibid. Tumulty to Wilson, May 1, 1919, Wilson Papers; Tumulty to Leffingwell, May 2, 1919, Carter Glass Papers (University of Virginia Library); Wilson to Tumulty, May 3, 1919, transmitting message for Hines, Tumulty Papers. Hines to Redfield, May 7, 1919, RInB, RG 40.

49 Peek, History of the Industrial Board (n.p., n.d.), 89–90.

50 Bush to Redfleld, May 5, 1919, file 78484, RG 40.

51 James to Redfield, May 12, 1919, ibid.

52 The Attorney General's Annual Report (1919), 53, and Palmer, A. Mitchell's, “A Just and Reasonable Profit,” Nation's Business, VII (October, 1919), 14–15Google Scholar, reflects the spirit of animosity for business misbehavior prevalent after prices began to rise. See Charles H. Michael, “Trusts Again to the Fore,” in the Sunday New York Times, October 12, 1919.