Carl Menger’s legislative commentary examines an Austrian government bill submitted on 1 June 1897 to place a specific group of cartels under administrative supervision. Its scope is deliberately limited: the proposal concerns combinations regulating production, prices, or sales of goods subject to production taxes, including sugar, beer, mineral oil, and salt. Menger presents the measure as a targeted response to harmful cartel practices, leaving the legal treatment of other cartels unchanged.
Es handelt sich in diesem Gesetze nämlich um nichts geringeres, als um einen Versuch, den gemeinschädlichen Wirkungen, zwar nicht der Kartelle überhaupt, wohl aber einer besonders wichtigen Gruppe derselben, durch Maßregeln der Verwaltung entgegenzutreten.
English translation: For in this law it is a question of nothing less than an attempt to counter, by measures of administration, the effects harmful to the common good not of cartels in general, to be sure, but of a particularly important group of them.
The commentary proceeds from the machinery of supervision to ministerial powers, penalties, and the legal recognition offered in exchange for regulation. Covered cartels would require notarized statutes specifying their organization, membership, purposes, and obligations. Statutes, amendments, and decisions affecting prices, output, purchasing, or sales would have to be reported to the Finance Ministry. Inspection powers would extend to cartel records and those of participating businesses, with an exemption for secret technical processes. The ministry could also demand security of up to 200,000 gulden.
A twelve-member commission, divided equally between officials and appointed experts, would advise the ministry before prohibitions and could itself be entrusted with supervisory functions. The central criterion for intervention combines economic justification with public harm: decisions could be prohibited where price increases against buyers, or reductions against producers, lacked justification in the industry’s objective economic circumstances and manifestly damaged tax receipts or the population’s capacity to pay taxes and consume. Menger thus describes a discretionary administrative assessment of cartel conduct, rather than a blanket rule against coordination.
Das Gesetz soll auch auf die bereits bestehenden Kartelle der obigen Art Anwendung finden.
English translation: The law is also to apply to cartels of the above kind already in existence.
This retrospective reach gives the proposed machinery immediate practical significance. Menger details a graduated enforcement system: failures to report or supply information could bring administrative fines or prohibition, while false statements and participation contrary to statutory requirements or official bans could incur imprisonment and larger fines. Administrative authorities would impose disciplinary penalties; ordinary courts would adjudicate the specified criminal offenses.
The decisive legal exchange appears after this account of restrictions. Supervision would bring enforceability to agreements previously denied legal effect under the Austrian coalition law of 1870:
Gleichsam als Entschädigung für die weitgehenden Einschränkungen, denen die Kartelle, auf welche das Gesetz sich bezieht, unterworfen werden sollen, werden die Vereinbarungen derselben durch das nämliche Gesetz als rechtswirksam anerkannt.
English translation: As a kind of compensation for the far-reaching restrictions to which the cartels covered by the law are to be subjected, their agreements are recognized by that same law as legally effective.
Menger’s formulation identifies the proposal’s core institutional move: recognition and control are complementary. Cartel agreements would acquire legal force within a framework enabling the state to inspect, constrain, and prohibit their operation. The commentary’s relevance lies in this account of a transition from withholding legal effect to making regulated cooperation legally effective.
The closing paragraph situates the bill within parliamentary timing and fiscal policy. The Reichsrat’s session had ended on 2 July, requiring reintroduction; Menger considers this likely because of the proposal’s favorable public reception. His restrained approval rests especially on the additional burden cartels might impose alongside higher indirect taxation:
Auch drängt die bevorstehende Erhöhung der indirekten Steuern in Oesterreich zu einem besonderen Schutze der Konsumenten gegen eine neben den staatlichen und kommunalen Auflagen sich geltend machende Belastung der Bevölkerung durch diejenigen Kartelle, welche nach dem Gesetzentwürfe eben der Staatsaufsicht unterworfen werden sollen.
English translation: The impending increase of indirect taxes in Austria likewise presses for a special protection of consumers against a burdening of the population, asserting itself alongside the state and municipal levies, by those cartels which under the draft law are to be made subject to state supervision.
Consumer protection and revenue concerns consequently converge in the rationale for intervention. Menger closes by praising the bill’s explanatory report and noting its partial correspondence with Adolf Menzel’s proposals. His argument remains closely tied to the legislation: the significant innovation is a selective supervisory regime that makes cartel conduct answerable to economic circumstances and public interests while granting agreements legal recognition.
This work was divided into 1 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 1 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian