The Atlanta Wholesale Grocers

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

COMPLAINT IN THE lfA'ITER OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEOTION II OF AN AOT OF OONGRESS APPROVED SEPI'El\rBER 26, 1914, Docket 579-May 16, 1922.

SYLLABUS.

Where an unincorporated association of manufacturers', brokers' and wholesalers' salesmen of a certain city and the wholesale grocery dealers serv- Ing the great majority of retailers therein, inspired by the operations of a competitor which (1) sold to retailers only, (2) had retail grocers for its stockholders, (3) pursued business methods not favored by said salesmen and dealers, and (4) with very few exceptions was given, by manufacturers and producers of food products, the same prices and terms as were given the dealers, (a) Sent to the manufacturers and producers of food products circular letters inviting, and calculated to invite, attention to direct sales made by them to said competitor, and to convey tbe impression that, should they tail to confine their sales to the so-called regular channels of distribution and continue selling directly to said competitor, they would lose the pat· ronage o! said dealers; and Where one of said dealers- ( b) Sent "follow up" circular letters pertaining to the same matter and o! the same general tenor to the manufacturers and producers; and (c) For the purpose of informing the manufacturers and producers that the Atlanta wholesale grocers were organized for mutual cooperation and protection against practices which they might deem to be detrimental to tlwlr Interests, Included in one of such letters a newspaper clipping announcing the formation of an organization of practically all the wholesale grocers of said city, which organization suld dealer's secretary was largely Instrumental in creating, for the purpose of using said body as a means of Influencing the manufacturers or producers to follow policies In harmony wlth those of the wholesale dealers, and to membership In which said competitor was not eligible; and Where some of said dealers- (d) Inquired of Atlanta brokers and rl'presentatlves of manufacturers whether direct sales were being made to Sltid competitor and advised them that, should they continue so to sell, they could not expect to retain the patronage and support of the dealers ;

All with the common intent, through concerted action, of Inducing the manufacturers and producers through fear of their united pressure, to interfere with the freedom of said competitor to obtain groceries and other food products, and with the elect of so doing:

IIeld, That such acts and practices, substantially as described, constituted unfair methods of competition.

ATLANTA WHOLESALE GROCERS ET AL. 467 466 Complaint.

COMPLAINT.

The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe from a preliminary investigation made by it that The Atlanta Wholesale Grocers, City Salesmen:p's Association, J. J. Barnes-Fain Co., Kelley Brothers Co., :McCord-Stewart Co., Marett-Streeter Co., Oglesby Grocery Co., H. L. Singer Co., Walker Brothers Co., A. l\Icd. ·wilson Co., Conley & Ennis, Johnson-Fluker & Co., :McDaniel & Co., Paradies & Rich, R. \V. Davis & Co., Charles I. Branan, J. N. Hirsch, 0. T. Camp, and R. 0. Estes, all of whom are hereinafter referred to as respondents, have been and are using unfair methods of competition in interstate commerce, in violation of the provisions of Section 5 of an act of Congress approved September 26, 1914, entitled "An act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes," and it appearing that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be to the interest of the public, issues this complaint stating its charges in that respect on information and belief as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. That the respondent, The Atlanta "Wholesale Grocers, is a membership corporation organized under the laws of the State of Georgia, without capital stock, and is in effect a trade association, the members of which are all engaged in the business of dealing in groceries and food products in the City of Atlanta, State of Georgia; that the respondent, The City Salesmen's Association, is an unincorporated, voluntary association composed of salesmen employed by certain persons, partnerships, and corporations engaged in the business of dealing in groceries and food products in the city of Atlanta, State of Georgia; that the J. J. Barnes-Fain Co., Kelley Bros. Co., McCord Stewart Co., Marett-Streeter Co., Oglesby Grocery Co., H. L. Singer Co., \Valker Bros. Co., and A. McD. \Vilson Co., are all corporations engaged in the business of dealing in groceries and food products in the City of Atlanta, State of Georgia; that Conley & Ennis, Johnson-Fluker & Co., McDaniel & Co., and Paradies & Rich are partnerships also engaged in the business of dealing in groceries and food products in the city of Atlanta, State of Georgia; that respondents R. \V. Davis, trading under the name and style of R. \V. Davis & Co., Charles I. Branan, and J. N. Hirsch are individuals engaged in the business of dealing in groceries and food products in the city of Atlanta; that respondents 0. T. Camp and R. 0. Estes are president and secretary, respectively, of the respondent, City Salesmen's Association. That each of said respondents, engaged in the business of dealing in groceries and food products as aforesaid, purchases commodities in the various States of the United States and In foreign countries and causes same to be transported therefrom to 111213° -23-vol 4--81 · . .. .. ......-.=*u~l ' ,_~ " ._,. ,..----------------~------- - -- 468 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS. Findings. 4F.T.C.

the State of Georgia, where same are resold by said respondents in wholesale quantities to purchasers in the State of Georgia and in other States adjacent thereto, and said respondents cause said commodities to be transported when sold from the State of Georgia through and into other States of the United States. PAR. 2. That the Unity Grocery Co. and the Merchants Wholesale Grocery Co. are corporations, each organized and existing undl3r the laws of the State of Georgia, with principal place of business at Atlanta, in said State, and each is engaged in the business of buying and selling in wholesale quantities, and in the usual course of wholesale trade, groceries and food products such as are bought and sold generally by persons, firms, and corporations engaged in the business generally known as that of a wholesale grocer; that in the course of its said business the Unity Grocery Co. and the Merchants 'Wholesale Grocery Co. each purchases commodities dealt in by it in the various States and Territories of the United States and transports same from and through other States, to the city of Atlanta, in the State of Georgia, where such commodities are resold in the usual course of wholesale trade; and there is continuously and has been at all times herein mentioned a constant current of trade and commerce in commodities so dealt in by said Unity Grocery Co. and the Merchants Wholesale Grocery Co. between and among the various States and Territories of the United States.

PAR, 3. That the respondents, with the purpose, intent, and effect of stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of grocery products at wholesale, have conspired and confederated together to prevent the Unity Grocery Co. and the Merchant's Wholesale Grocery Co. from obtaining commodities dealt in by them, from manufacturers and other usual sources from which a wholesale dealer in groceries must obtain supplies, and have by boycott and threats of boycott and by other unlawful means induced manufacturers of grocery products and brokers representing such manufacturers to refuse to sell their products to said Unity Grocery Co. and the Merchants ·wholesale Grocery Co., and such manufacturers and brokers were informed by respondents that if they sold their products to said Unity Grocery Co. and Merchants Wholesale Grocery Co. that said respondents would not thereafter purchase any of the products of said manufacturers and brokers.

REPORT, FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS, AND ORDER. Pursuant to the provisions of an Act of Congress approved September 26, 1914, the Federal Trade Commission issued and served a complaint upon }he re~pondents, The Atlanta Wholesale Grocers, A.TLA.NT.A. WHOLESALE GROCERS ET AL. 469 466 Findings.

City Salesmen's Association, J. J. Barnes-Fain Co., Kelly Brothers ·Co., :McCord-Stewart Co., Marett-Streater Co., Oglesby Grocery Co., H. L. Singer Co., 'V alker Brothers Co., A. McD. "Wilson & Co., Conley & Ennis, Johnson-Fluker & Co., McDaniel & Co., Paradies & Rich, R. W. Davis, doing business under the firm name and style of R. "\V. Davis & Co., Charles I. Branan, J. N. Hirsch, 0. T. Camp and R. 0. Estes, charging them with the use of unfair methods of competition in commerce in violation of the provisions of said act. The respondents having entered their appearances by their attorneys and filed their answers herein, hearings were had and evidence was thereupon introduced in support of the allegations of the said complaint and on behalf of the said respondents before an examiner of the Federal Trade Commission theretofore duly appointed. And thereupon this proceeding came on for final hearing, and the Commission having heard argument of counsel and duly considered the record, and being now fully advised in the premises, makes this its findings as to the facts and conclusion. FI)i"I>INOS AS TO Tile FACTS.

PARAGRAPH 1. The respondent, The Atlanta Wholesale Grocers, is, and at all times since June 19, 1919, has been a membership corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Georgia. It is without capital stock and does not engage in business for profit. Its membership is composed of the wholesale grocers named in Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of these findings.

PAR. 2. Each of the respondents, J. J. Barnes-Fain Co., Kelly Brothers Co., 1\IcCord-Stewart Co., H. L. Singer Co., A. 1\Icd. Wilson Co., 'Valker Brothers Co., Oglesby Grocery Co., and Marett- Streater Co., is a corporation organized and existing under the la~s of the State of Georgia, with its principal office and place of business in Atlanta, in said State, and is engaged in the business of purchasing in the various States of the United States groceries and other food products, and causing same to be transported therefrom to its place of business in the said city of Atlanta! where the same are sold in wholesale quantities to the retail grocery trade in the State of Georgia and adjoining States.

PAR. 3. Each of the respondents, Conley & Ennis, Johnson-Fluker & Co., McDaniel & Co., and Paradies & Rich, is a partnership, and as such is engaged in the business of purchasing in the various ~states of the United States groceries and other food products, caus- Ing same to be transported therefrom to their place of business in the city of Atlanta, Ga., where the same are sold in wholesale r----------------""---...oo....;........._______ - --- - • 4 70 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS. Fin~ngs. 4F.T.C.

quantities to the retail grocery trade in the State of Georgia and adjoining States.

PAR. 4. Each of the respondents, R. '\V. Davis, doing business under the name and style R. '\V. Davis & Co., Charles I. Branan and J. N. Hirsch, as an individual, is engaged in the business of purchasing in the various States of the United States groceries and other food products and causing the same to be transported to his place of business in the city of Atlanta, Ga., where the same are sold in wholesale quantities to the retail grocery trade in the State of Georgia and adjoining States..

PAR. 5. The respondent, City Salesmen~s Association of Atlanta, Ga., for many years last past has been and was at the time of the issuance of the complaint herein an unincorporated association, having a membership of about 75, composed of salesmen representing manufacturers, brokers, and wholesalers of various products. Its membership is composed principally of grocery salesmen, and about 75 per cent of the salesmen employed by the Atlanta wholesale grocers named in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of these findings are members. It is formed for the mutual benefit of its members and does not engage in business for profit. Meetings are held every Satur. day, and minutes are kept.

Respondents R. 0. Estes ann 0. T. Camp are salesmen in the city of Atlanta and members of the City Salesmen's Association, and at the time of the filing of the complaint in this proceeding were secretary and president, respectively, of said association. R. 0. :Estes is a salesman for the respondent Oglesby Grocery Co., and 0. T. Camp at the time of the occurrences set out in these findings was the Atlanta salesman of a specialty manufacturer, the Reilly- Taylor Co., of New Orleans, La.

All of the members of said City Salesmen's Association are not made parties respondent in this proceeding because to do so would have delayed the proceeding, and R. 0. Estes and 0. T. Camp are named respondents as the association's representatives, for the purpose of bringing the members of the association before the Commission.

PAR. 6. The Unity Grocery Company is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Georgia, with its principal office and place of business in Atlanta, in said State, and is engaged in the business of purchasing in the various States of the United States groceries and other food products and causing same to be transported therefrom to its place of business in the city of Atlanta, where the same are sold in wholesale quantities to the retail grocery trade.

ATLANTA WHOLESALE GROCERS ET AL. 471 466 Findings. PAn. 7. The Unity Grocery Company and respondent wholesale grocers named in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of these findings are competitors in the business of buying and selling in wholesale quantities groceries and other food products such as are bought and sold generally by persons, firms, and corporations engaged in the business commonly known as the wholesale grocery business. PAR. 8. The Unity Grocery Company was organized and incorporated under the laws of the State of Georgia on April 8, 1918, by a. number of retailers for the purpose of purchasing in wholesale quantities groceries and other food products, and selling same to retail grocers. It is given this authority by its charter. Since the date of its organization it has been and still is engaged in the business of purchasing from manufacturers and producers groceries and other food products such as are generally carried by those engaged in the business of a wholesale grocery, and selling and distributing same to retail grocers located principally in the city of Atlanta. The authorized maximum capital stock of said Company is $50,- 000, of which amount $10,000 was paid in when business began. Since that time its capital stock has been gradually increased. September 30, 1920, it had a paid-in capital stock of $25,000. The yearly sales of the Company since its organization have been as follows: $194,437.44 from April 8 to December 31, 1918; $398,819.84 in 1919; $334,008 from January 1 to August 31, 1920. This Company has shown a steady growth from the date of its organization. The Unity Grocery Company sells to retail grocers only. Its sale or list prices are the same approximately as the sale or list prices charged by respondent wholesalers, except that said Unity Grocery Company allows a larger cash discount to stockholder customers than is allowed by respondent wholesalers, and a larger cash discount than is allowed by said Unity Grocery Company to its nonstockholder customers. In addition to the above-mentioned discount given stockholders on purchases, the Unity Grocery Company pays a quarterly dividend of 21 per cent. Its sales are not limi~d to stockholders, but 90 per cent of its customers are stockholders. They number approximately 120. Goods are generally sold by the Unity Grocery Company f. o. b. warehouse, and when delivery is made said Company makes a charge for such service. Whenever a customer does not pay for goods within one week after date of purchase, he is cut off until he bas paid his bills. Prior to the issuance of the complaint in this proceeding the Unity Grocery Company employeJ no soliciting salesmen, but used the telephone instead. Since a short time after the organization of the company, it has been able to secure in this way about all the business it could conveniently handle. -.w .,..------~~--.........----........--....-----·---- - - 4 72 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS, Findings. 4F.T.C.

PAR. 9. The Merchants Wholesale Grocery Company was a corporation engaged in a wholesale grocery business similar to that of the Unity Grocery Company. The Merchants Wholesale Grocery Company was unsuccessful financially and went into bankrupt~y in 1919.

PAR. 10. Respondents named in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of these findings, were, at all times, mentioned in the complaint and ever since have been engaged in the business of purchasing in wholesale quantities groceries and kindred products, and selling and distributing same to retail grocers in the usual course of the wholesale grocery trade. They employed salesmen who called on the retail trade and solicited orders, and said respondents extended credit to their customers and delivered goods in Atlanta and its suburbs without making any additional charge for the service of delivering. The total sales of respondents above referred to :for the year 1919 amounted to $14,279,044. There are approximately 1,800 retail grocers in Atlanta, most of whom are supplied by said respondents. About 100 are supplied by chain stores, and approximately 120 purchase more or less of their supplies from the Unity Grocery Company.

PAR. 11. The business carried on by the Unity Grocery Company originated in an effort upon the part of retail dealers in Atlanta, Ga., to purchase groceries and other food products at reduced costs. Costs were reduced in part by (1) soliciting sales over the telephone, (2) doing business upon short credit terms, (3) having few salaried officers, and (4) not giving free delivery service to customers. 'With very few exceptions, manufacturers and producers engaged in marketing groceries and other food products sell to the Unity Grocery Company at the same price and upon the same terms and conditions as to respondent wholesalers. The business carried on by the Unity Grocery Company, as hereinbefore found, was not in harmony with the plan and policy of respondent wholesalers named in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, of these findings, respecting the. distribution of grocery and other food products from manufacturer to wholesaler, to retailer, to consumer. The respondent wholesalers referred to in this paragraph were opposed to sales direct by manufacturers and producers to the Unity Grocery Company.

PAR. 12. Shortly prior to March 24, 1919, a committee comprising a number of the members of the respondent City Salesmen's Association-about seven in number-the names of whom are not all known but among whom were J. C. Harrison and A. S. Edwards, salesmen of respondent 'Valker Brothers Co., R. 0. Estes, salesman of ATLANTA WHOLESALE GROCERS ET AL. 473 466 Findings. Oglesby Grocery Co., and E. S. Morris, salesman of respondent Kelly Brothers Co., met on different occasions in the City of Atlanta and discussed the question of sales direct by manufacturers and producers to the Unity Grocery Company. This committee of salesmen reflecting the views of their employers, and in their own interest as salesmen of such employers, was opposed to sales direct by manufacturers and producers to the Unity Grocery Company. At these meetings the above-mentioned committee of salesmen for the purpose and object of causing manufacturers and producers not to sell to the Unity Grocery Company, drafted two form letters intended to be sent to all important manufacturers and producers selling grocery products in the Atlanta market, one to be sent out by the respondent City Salesmen's Association and the other over the name of each of the respondent wholesalers named in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of these findings as set out above. PAR. 13. The letter drafted by the committee of salesmen and intended to be sent out by the respondent City Salesmen's Association with the purpose and object as found in the foregoing paragraph was presented to the respondent City Salesmen's Association in open meeting. This letter was discussed by the Association members, and after certain changes had been made, the respondent City Salesmen's Association's authorized officers on March 24, 1919, sent a copy of the same to all important manufacturers and producers selling grocery and other food products in the Atlanta market. The letter sent pursuant to such authorization reads as follows: GENTLEMEN:

Do you need the jobber as a distributor? Upon the BUCOCBB ot the jobber depends the salary ot the Atlanta City salesman.

It you sell "the cream" of the Atlanta retall trade direct, how can you ask the co-operation of the salesman and the jobber In distributing your goods to the remainder of the retail trade? We invite you to carefully investigate the distribution of your goods In Atlanta, nnd 11 they are not going through the legitimate jobbing channels we would be glad to have your cooperation in directing their sale. We ask you to look into the distribution of your goods in Atlanta, and if they are not going through the legitimate jobbing channels, don't you think It would be to your Interest to direct the sale where it properly belongs? You need our assistance, we need your help. May we expect it? Respectfully yours, CITY SALESMEN's Association.

PAR, 14. The other letter drafted by the committee of salesmen and intended to be sent out by the different respondent wholesalers, as stated in paragraph 12, was authorized and sanctioned by the sec- 474 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS. Findings. 4F.T.C.

retary of the respondent City Salesmen's Association, and a large number of its members. This latter was submitted to certain respondent wholesalers sometime between the 15th and 24th of March, 1919. The exact number and the names of all the salesmen who presented this letter to respondent wholesalers is not known, but they apparently represented a group larger in number than the committee which drafted the same, and consisted of some twelve salesmen, most of whom were employed by the different respondent wholesalers. This letter was submitted to respondents Vvalker Brothers Co., H. L. Singer Co., Oglesby Grocery Co., Charles I. Branan, Kelly Brothers Co., R. "\V. Davis & Co., J. J. Barnes-Fain Co., Johnson-Fluker & Co., Paradies & Rich, McCord-Stewart Co., and Conley & Ennis. The first eight named respondents on their own stationery under date of March 24, 1919, and over their own names sent this letter to all important manufacturers and producers selling grocery products in the Atlanta market. Paradies & Rich sent this letter out under date of March 26, 1919. Respondents McCord-Stewart Co. and Conley & Ennis did not send out the letter. Respondents Kelly Brothers Co., Walker Brothers Co., Oglesby Grocery Co., H. L . .Singer Co., R. W. Davis & Co., Johnson-Fluker & Co., Paradies & Rich and Charles I. Branan knew that other respondent wholesalers were sending out this letter, and that the respondent City Salesmen's Association was sending out the respondent City Salesmen's Association letter as found in paragraph 13. Members of the respondent City Salesmen's Association who submitted the letter to respondent wholesalers discussed with the last named eight respondent wholesalers the matter of the respondent City Salesmen's Association and the said respondent wholesalers sending out the letters to manufacturers and producers, and it is found that the last eight above named respondents knew that the respondent City Salesmen's Association letter and the respondent wholesalers' letter of March 24th were being sent out, and that they intended them as a united protest on the part of the respondent City Salesmen's Association and said respondent wholesalers against sales by manufacturers and producers to the Unity Grocery Company. This letter read as follows :

" GENTLEMEN! The manufacturer-the jobber-the retailer. The generally recognized channel for distributing goods to the consumer.

Do you need the services and good wlll of the Atlanta jobber in distributing your goods? If you do, bow can you hope for tbe.Jobber to continue in business and feature your goods when you go direct, over b!s head and sell through buying agencies, a good part of his retail customers? ATLANTA WHOLESALE GROCERS ET AL. 475 466 Findings. We ask you to look into the distribution of your goods in Atlanta, and it they are not going through the legitimate jobbing channels, do you not think it would be to your interest to direct the sale where it properly belongs? If you do not need the services of the jobber and his many salesmen, this letter will not interest you."

PAR. 15. J. C. Harrison, a member of the respondent City Salesmen's Association and a salesman of respondent Walker Brothers Company, was largely instrumental in the composition of the two letters set out in the foregoing paragraphs, and in cooperation with R. 0. Estes, secretary of the respondent City Salesmen's Association · and salesman of Oglesby Grocery Company, was influential in causing the respondent City Salesmen's Association and respondent wholesalers to send out the letters with the object and purpose as found in the foregoing paragraphs.

PAR. 16. On Aprilll, 1919, the respondents named m Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of these findings, as set out above, met in the City of Atlanta, Georgia, for the purpose of forming an organization for their mutual benefit. These respondent wholesalers met again on April17, 1919, at which meeting officers were elected. A. W. Walker, of respondent ·walker Brothers Co., was influential in perfecting the organization and was elected secretary. Subsequently on June 19, 1919, as hereinbefore found, this organization was incorporated under the name of The Atlanta Wholesale Grocers. This · organization was not, as such, a party to the conspiracy alleged in the complaint and found in these findings, as set out above. The membership of this organization comprise practically all of the wholesale grocers in the City of Atlanta. The Unity Grocery Co. was not eligible to membership under the rules of this organization. Weekly meetings were held, and at such meetings matters of mutual business and social interest were discussed. The discussions at various times pertained, among other things, to such matters as taxation, telephone service, road problems, sidewalk deliveries, credits, continuation of suburban express lines, cooperation between wholesalers and retailers, relief of public from sugar shortage, inadequate facilities of the freight-receiving depots, and exchange of bulletins with the St. Louis Wholesale Grocers. Minutes were kept and many matters discussed by the Association are recorded in the minutes. The minutes contain no discussion of matters relating to manufacturers selling the Unity Grocery Co. Paragraph 2 of the certificate of incorporation of The Atlanta Wholesale Grocers, contains the following statement as to the purposes of the organization: The object and purpose of said corporation is to foster and promote a feeling of good fellowship and good will among its members, and, on broad and 476 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS. Flpdlngs. 4F.T.C.

equitable lines, to advance the Welfare Of TBE WHOLESALE GROCERY TRADE OF ATLANTA.

To establish harmonious relations between manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers for the advancement of their several interests and businesses in the distribution of food products, to the end that same will reach the consumers at the lowest possible cost.

To obtaining just and fair laws relating to all matters in which its members are interested, establishing bureaus for the exchange of such information among its members as may seem proper, and to do any and all things necessary for the conduct of such incorporation and the bringing together of its members in closer association.

It is found that A. ,V, Walker, of respondent Walker Brothers Co., had the further purpose and object of using the said organization as a means o£ influencing manufacturers and producers to refuse to sell to the Unity Grocery Company, by informing said manufacturers and producers that the members, constituting in their combined form The Atlanta 'Vholesale Grocers, objected to manufacturers and producers selling the Unity Grocery Company. PAR. 17. Certain o£ the manufacturers and producers to whom respondent Walker Brothers Co. sent the wholesalers' letter of :March 24, 1919, as hereinbefore set out, replied to said letter, and such replies indicated to Walker Brothers Co. that said manufacturers and producers had not fully understood the said letter of March 24, 1919, and on April 18, 1919, respondent Walker Brothers Co. sent out to the important manufacturers and producers selling grocery and other food products in the Atlanta market, another letter to explain and make clear the aforesaid letter of :March 24, 1919. Walker Brothers Co. enclosed in this letter of April 18, 1919, a newspaper clipping which recited the fact that the wholesale grocers of Atlanta had organized for their mutual benefit. It is found that tValker Brothers Co. enclosed said newspaper clipping in said letter with the purpose of informing said manufacturers and producers that The Atlanta Wholesale Grocers were organized for their mutual cooperation and protection against any practices which they might deem to be unfair or detrimental to their interests. 'Valker Brothers Co.'s letter of April18 reads as follows:

In re: Justioe and Your Jobber.

The Manufacturer and the Jobber can not both sell the same Retail customer successfully.

Do you need the Jobber? It so, do you think there is any justice in the Manufacturer selling the Jobber's retail trade direct through a Buying Agency, such as the Unity Grocery Company and others, who neither employ traveling salesmen, or otherwise assist the Manufacturer in distributing his goods. ATLANTA WHOLESALE GROCERS ET AL. 477 466 Findings. The Wholesale Groceryman pays taxes, rents a warehouse, carries heavy stocks of goods, borrows large sums of money, extends good credits and ri-sky credits, operates delivery trucks, and employs the best high class salesmen to be had.

AU of this for what purpose? To give the Manufacturer and the netnll Merchant the best known means of distribution.

The firm of Walker Brothers Company desires to continue in business and distribute your products, but if you "tie" our hands by seillng direct some of our trade, what can we do? We ask you, 1\Ir. Manufacturer, most seriously, what you would do under similar circumstances? We earnestly solicit your cooperation and support, and beg that we may all" pull" together as heretofore. The Manufacturer, The Jobber, The Retailer. Most sincerely yours, ALKER BROTHERS COMPANY. 'V FOOD FOR THOUGHT.

Possibly you do not know that the Unity Grocery Company of Atlanta, stock owned exclusively by Retail Merchants, employs no Salesmen, buys goods at Jobbers' cost, bills them out to Its Stockholders, and collects for them the following week at Jobbers' cost plus 3%.

Do you think this is price cutting! Can you expect your jobber to meet this kind of competition and discount his bills? Do you think this plan of Unity Grocery Company distribution will increase your sales? The newspaper clipping enclosed in the foregoing letter of April 18th, reads as follows :

HUDSON PRESIDENT OF ATLANTA 'VHOLESALE GROCERS ASSOCIATION, The Atlanta Wholesale Grocers Association at a meeting Thursday afternoon in the Chamber of Commerce elected E. l\I, Hudson, of the McCord-Stewart Company, as president; J. N. Hirsch was named vice-president; A. W. Walker, secretary; and H. L. Singer, treasurer.

The wholesale grocers have organized for their mutual benefit and have filed an application for charter. It Is expected that virtually every wholesale grocery firm In Atlanta will become indentified with the Association, The following firms already belong to the association: J. J. Barnes-Fain Company, Charles I. Branan, n. W. Davis & Co., Sam Saltzman, A. McD. Wilson Co., J. N. Hirsch,, Paradies & lllch, Kelly Bros. Co., H. L. Singer Co., Conley & Ennis, Rogers-Prater Company, Johnson-Fluker & Co., Marett-Streater Company, Oglesby Grocery Company, l\IcDanlel & Oo., record-Stewart Com- I pany, Walker Brothers Company, /! PAR. 18. On May 1, 1919, respondent "Valker Brothers Co. sent out I another letter to most of the manufacturers and producers from F I whom it buys goods. In this letter were enclosed copies of tne letters " II I' I·I ! 1:

i.' 478 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS. Fij?.dings. 4F.T.C.

sent out by Walker Brothers Co., under date of April 18th, as hereinbefore set out. Its letter of May 1st, reads as follows : GENTLEMEN:

Re: Unity Grocery Company.

For your information we beg to state we have received very favorable replies, both direct and in person, from the majority of our manufacturing friends, whom we told our troubles to in the form of a circular letter addressed to " M:r. Manufacturer" on April 18th, a copy of this letter enclosed for ready reference. The Atlanta situation, as we view it, is far more serious than, we belleve, the Manufncturers realize, and, unless the Jobber is given immediate protection by the 1\Ianufacturer from this unjust method of competition, his usefulness as a distributor for the Manufacturer is going to be greatly reduced. We have good reason to fear, and' believe other Buying Agencies, similar to the Unity Grocery, will soon be organized in this city. Should this occur, you can readily see where your jobber will be, either out of business or in bankruptcy, We firmly believe the jobber is the Manufacturer's best and most economical method of getting goods to the lletaller, and we earnestly solicit your cooperation.

Yours very truly, W ALKEB BROTHERS COMPANY.

PAR. 19. During the penod late spring and early summer following the sending out of the letters of March 24, 1919, by the respondent City Salesmen's Association and respondent wholesalers, as hereinbefore found, some of the respondent wholesalers, to wit, Walker Brothers Co., H. L. Singer Co., Oglesby Grocery Co., and Paradies & Rich, inquired of certain Atlanta brokers and employees representing manufacturers in the Atlanta market whether direct sales were being made to the Unity Grocery Company, and whether it was their intention selling direct to the Unity Grocery Company, and the above-named respondents referred to in this paragraph notified the said brokers and manufacturers' employees that they could not expect to retain the patronage, cooperation, and support of the. respondent wholesalers referred to in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of these findings, if they continued to sell to the Unity Grocery Company. PAR. 20. During the period of late spring and early summer follow · ing the sending out of the letters of March 24, 1919, by the respondent City Salesmen's Association and respondent wholesalers, as hereinbefore found, a number of brokers, agents, and salesmen representing grocery and other food product manufacturers and producers in the Atlanta market wrote the principals, whose lines of products said brokers, agents, and salesmen represented, that said respondent City Salesmen's Association and respondent wholesalers' letters of March 24, as aforesaid, were connected in one campaign and sent to all grocery and food product manufacturers and producers for the purpose of securing general action against sales direct to the Unity Grocery Company. · ATLANTA WHOLESALE GROCERS ET AL. 479 466 Findings. PAR. 21. On or about April18, 1919, a number of Atlanta brokers, representing manufacturers of grocery and other food products, met in the city of Atlanta, Georgia, and organized. The purpose and object of this brokers' organization was to classify concerns to whom said brokers would sell and those to whom said brokers would not sell. At this organization meeting the question whether said brokers would sell to the Unity Grocery Company was discussed. These brokers decided to continue selling to the Unity Grocery Company for the time being.

PAR. 22. During the period of late spring and early summer following the sending out of the letters of March 24, 1919, by the respondent City Salesmen's Association and respondent wholesalers, as hereinbefore found, the Unity Grocery Company had fewer calls from brokers representing in the Atlanta market manufacturers of groceries and other food products. This' conduct on the part of said brokers is attributable to the acts and conduct on the part of the respondent wholesalers and respondent City Salesmen's Association, as set forth in the foregoing paragraphs of these findings. PAn. 23. That by reason of all of the acts, practices,· and conduct on the part of respondent City Salesmen's Association and respondent wholesalers, as set forth in the foregoing paragraphs of these findings, the Unity Grocery Company's freedom to purchase and secure supplies, usually handled by it in the course of its business in interstate commerce, was unduly obstructed and interfered with. ,i The Unity Grocery Company for a short period of time during the late spring and summer of 1919 was unable to purchase and secure supplies from the Southern Cotton Oil Company, of Savannah, Georgia; the Carnation Milk Company, of Chicago, Illinois; and Stokeley Brothers Company, of Newport, Tennessee. PAR. 24. It is found that it was the common purpose of the respondent City Salesmen's Association, and respondents 'Valker Brothers Co., Kelly Brothers Co., Oglesby Grocery Co., H. L. Singer Co., R. ,V. Davis & Co., Paradies & Rich, Charles I. Branan, and Johnson-Fluker & Co., to induce manufacturers and producers through fear of united pressure exerted by them to interfere with the freedom of the Unity Grocery Company to obtain in interstate commerce groceries and other food products, and as a means to the attainment of such purpose pursued in common and in cooperation with each other the acts and conduct as found in the foregoing paragraphs of these findings. That the purpose and intent of all of the activities, as set out in these findings, on the part of the respondent City Salesmen's Association and respondent wholesalers, referred to 480 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS. Order. 4F.T.C.

in this paragraph, was unduly to hinder competition in interstate commerce between respondents Walker Brothers Co., Kelly Brothers Co., Oglesby Grocery Co., H. L. Singer Co., R. vV. Davis & Co., Paradies & Rich, Charles I. Branan, and Johnson-Fluker & Co., and the Unity Grocery Company, and thereby unduly to hinder competition in the distribution and sale of groceries and other food products in interstate commerce.

P .AR. 25. There is not sufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that respondents, J. J. Barnes-Fain Co., Marett-Streater Co., A. :McD. 'Vilson Co., Conley & Ennis, :McCord Stewart Co., Mc- Daniel & Co., and J. N. Hirsch, were parties to the conspiracy alleged in the complaint and found in these findings. CONCLUSION.

That the acts, agreements; understandings, policies, and practices of the respondents, City Salesmen's Association, 'Valker Brothers Co., Kelly Brothers Co., Oglesby Grocery Co., H. L. Singer Co., R. '\V. Davis & Co., Paradies & Rich, Charles I. Branan, and Johnson-Fluker & Co., and each and all of them are unfair methods of competition in interstate commerce, and constitute a violation of the Act of Congress 'approved September 26, 1914, entitled "An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes."

ORDER TO CEASE .AND DESIST, This proceeding having been heard upon the complaint of the Commission, the answers of the respective respondents, the testimony and evidence, and the argument of counsel, and the Commission having made its findings as to the facts with its conclusion that respondent City Salesmen's Association, its officers, committees, and members, and respondents ·walker Brothers Co., Kelly Brothers Co., Oglesby Grocery Co., H. L. Singer Co., Johnson-Fluker & Co., R. ,V, Davis, doing business under the name and style of R. W. Davis & Co., Paradies & Rich, and Charles I. Branan, have violated the provisions of the act of Congress approved September 26, 1914, entitled "An act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes,"

It is now ordered, That respondent City Salesmen's Association, its officers, committees, and members, Walker Brothers Co., Kelly Brothers Co., Oglesby Grocery Co., H. L. Singer Co., Johnson- Fluker & Co., R. ,V, Davis, doing business under the name and style of R. W. Davis & Co., Paradies & Rich, and Charles I. Branan, and each of them, forever cease and desist from- ATLANTA WHOLESALE GROCERS ET AL. 481 466 Order.

1. Combining and conspiring together among themselves, or with others, and from using any scheme or device or means whatsoever, directly or indirectly, to accomplish that result, to hinder, obstruct, or prevent the Unity Grocery Company, or others engaged in similar business, from freely purchasing and obtaining, in interstate commerce, the commodities or products handled by said company in the course of its business, or from freely competing in interstate commerce with respondents Walker Brothers Co., Kelly Brothers Co., Oglesby Grocery Co., H. L. Singer Co., Johnson-Fluker & Co., R. ,V, Davis & Co., Paradies & Rich, and Charles I. Branan, or others engaged in similar business.

2. Combining and conspiring among themselves and with others to give, and from giving, directly or indirectly, verbal, written, or other notices or communications, to manufacturers and producers, their agents or brokers, having the purpose, tendency, or the effect of inducing, coercing, or compelling manufacturers and producers, their agents or brokers, to refuse to deal with or sell to the Unity Grocery Company, or others engaged in similar business, upon the same terms and conditions usually accorded by said manufacturers and producers to respondents 'Valker Brothers Co., Kelly Brothe,rs Co., Oglesby Grocery Co., H. L. Singer Co., Johnson-Fluker & Co., R. ,V, Davis & Co., Paradies & Rich, and Charles L Branan. 3. Combining or conspiring together among themselves, or with I others, and from using any scheme or device or means whatsoever, to accomplish that result, directly" or indirectly, to hinder, obstruct, or prevent manufacturers or producers, their agents or brokers, from dealing with the Unity Grocery Company, or others engaged in similar business, upon as favorable terms and conditions as those usually accorded by the said manufacturers or producers to respondents, 'Valker Brothers Co., Kelly Brothers Co., Oglesby Grocery Co., H. L. Singer Co., Johnson-Fluker & Co., R. ,V, Davis & Co., Paradies & Rich, and Charles I. Branan, or others engaged in similar business.

4. Combining and conspiring among themselves, or with others, to induce, coerce, or compel manufacturers or producers, or their agents or their brokers, directly or indirectly, to refuse to sell goods, wares, and merchandise to the Unity Grocery Company, or to others engaged in the same business, upori the same terms and conditions usually offered and given by the said manufacturers and producers, their agents or their brokers, to respondents 'Valker Brothers Co., Kelly Brothers Co., Oglesby Grocery Co., H. L. Singer Co., Johnson-Fluker & Co., R. ,V, Davis & Co., Paradies & Rich, and Charles I. Branan, or others engaged in the same business. ",,l I I ! i l ! 482 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS. Order. 4F.T.C.

5. Combining and conspiring among themselves, or with others, to boycott or threaten to boycott, or to threaten with loss of patronage or custom or support, any manufacturer or producer, or his agent or broker, engaged in interstate commerce, who sells or agrees to sell to the Unity Grocery Company, or others engaged in similar business, on the same terms and conditions accorded by such manufacturer or producer, or his agent or broker, to respondents 'Valker Brothers Co., Kelly Brothers Co., Oglesby Grocery Co., H. L. Singer Co., Johnson-Fluker & Co., R. W. Davis & Co., Paradies & Rich, and Charles I. Branan, or others engaged in the same business. It is further ordered, That the respondents, City Salesmen's Association, its officers, committees, and members, ·walker Brothers Co., Kelly Brothers Co., Oglesby Grocery Co., H. L. Singer Co., Johnson- Fluker & Co., R. vV. Davis & Co., Paradies & Rich, and Charles I. Branan, and each of them, shall within ( 60) days after the service upon them of a copy of this order file with the Commission a report in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with the order to cease and desist, hereinbefore set forth.

CASES IN WHICH ORDERS OF DISCONTINUANCE OR DISMISSAL HAVE BEEN ENTERED. Date of j Docket 1 Respondents. Commodity. Charges. Answer, stipulation,l Reason for discontinuance or dismissal. :=: order. No. or tnal. ~- ...... 1921. ~ July12 779 1. H. Dodson and F. Razors I False and misleading advertising and mis-1 Answer j Discontinuance by respondents of the M. Davis, -partners, bnl.uding. practices eomplllined ol and subsequent sale by them of their business. sth:~ themselves !'-:)1 T ational Manufacturing Co.

Whole- Drugs Combination or conspiracy to punish Answer and trial .•. , No reasons assigned. Commissioner and druggists' a concern 15 609 Philadelphia I ..: sundries. for its business course in certain matters and I Gaskill dissents.• sale Drug Co., 0r t"' Frank R. ROhrman, to coerce It by boycott into a more acceptable Russell T. Black- course. wood, A. T. Pollard, Harry Z. Krullf., H. C. ClaihamH . W.

!'-:) Fohr, . R. esske, I 1. N. G. Long, 0. ~ W. J. Seigfreid, OsterlundF. H.P. 1:/l~ Streeper. 201 620 I White Sewing Ma- Sewing mac bin e s, Open!' ting secret subsidiary or bogus Inde- Answer, stlpula- No reasons assigned; dismissed wlthou chine Co. eq_uipment and sup- pendent. tion,and respond- prejudice. ~ plies. ent's motion to 1:/l dismiss. ~ Espionage and cutting off competitors' supplies Answer and trial ... Failure of proof. 1:/l 26 568 I DarUng & Co......... .I Animal rats (render- ing and refining). through paying prohibitive and unwarranted Yl prices therefor. and exclusive contracts and commercial! I. Dupont 29 461 I E. de Ne- I Blasting powder ...... Tying Answer ............ ! No reasons assigned. ~ bribery, tbe former being charged as in viola- moues & Co. tion of section 3 or the Clay:ton Act as well as of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Aug. 3 608 I Amico Oil Co. of .Kan- I Capital stock (oil) ..... False and misleading advertising ................ l..... do ............. l Failure of proof. sas.

3 6191 FawnCreekOil&Gas j do ................ do .......................................... Answer and trial. Do. l..... l 19 731 T~:ExoolsiorShoeCo. Shoos ................. Falseandmisleadingadvertisingandmislabeling. Answer ............ ! No reasons assigned; dismissed Without prejudice. Sept. 2 730 Frank Dalby and Wal- Lumber, millwork, I Hamssingcompetitor ........................... .l ..... do ............ . Do. ter Hard wick, doing and building matebusiness as a part- rials.

nership under the firm name and style of Dalby & Hardwick.

~ l The complaint In this case, and Commissioner Gaskill's Written dissent from the action of the commission in dismissing the same, will be found set forth at p. 491 et seq. 00 ~ -~-- ...:~: -=;··--- ----------.-... --·--..: -··_·~_._-.......... CASES IN WHICH ORDERS OF DISCONTINUANCE OR DISMISSAL HAVE BEEN ENTERED-Continued. Jo!:>.. Jo!:>..

Date of Docket Raspondents. Commodity. Charges. Answer, stipulation, Reason for discontinuance or dismissal order. No. or trial. 1921.

ilept.16 768 Keen & Collins, Inc Ladles' wearing ap- False and misleading advertising ......................... No reasons assigned; dismissed without pare!. prejudice. Oct. 8 399 American Dental Dental goods . Resale price maintenance and combination and Answer and trial Do. Trade Assn., The conspiracy to secure monopoly. l:zj Den tB I Manu!ac- 1."1 turers' Club, Ameri- t:j can Retail Dental 1."1 Dealers' Assn., I.

H. Hettinger, R. C. Shumway, G. Lay· ~ tonGrier,A.R.Kel· tie, 1. R. Shepkard, C. o. Rother, • A. Slaight, F. 1. Cran· dell Park Billings ~1."1 A.ii. Weber,Royai PartridJe a n d a0 George • Holden. s 750 Benjamin H. CaplJ::, Roof coating prepare- False and misleading advertising do. . Failure of proof • t:::: trading under e tion. t:::: name and style of ..... Asbestos Roofing UlUl Company. ..... 8 782 D.1. ea;.y,enter, trad· Men's clothing, shoes, False and misleading advertising and assuming .................................... Respondent has ~e out of business and 0 ing un er the name tents, blankets, cot., misleading firm or trade name. its affairs are in the hands of a trustee z and style of U. S. mattresses, paints, in bankruptcy. Salvage Co. oils, etc. t:j Nov. 8 20S Tobacco Products Cor· Tobacco products . Bo~ independents; discriminatin~; commis- Answer No reasons assigned; dismissed without l=J poratio'¥ The Mela· swns calculated to stifle competition; and prejudice. Q and exclusive contracts; in violation chrino o b a e eo tying of Ul..... sec. 6 of the Federal Trade Commission act, Trading~ Co.; Schi· 0 11:!.~~ and discrimination, acquisition of stock nasi rost Inc.; Prudential obacco to e · · ate comf.etition, and interlocking z Co., Inc.; Falk To- directorates in vio ation of sees. 2, 7,and S,re- r-n bacco Co.; Geo. L. spectively, of the Clayton Act. Storm; Reuben M.

Ellis; Albert Falk;

Jacob L. Hoffman;

James M. Dixon;

Grali Miller; L. B.

Me "tterick; and Leon Schinasi.

10 576 P. A. Starck Piano Co.! Pianos and player False and misleading advertising and misrepre- Answer and trial. •. , Do. pianos. senting prices to be charged. 12 580 I Crocker Brothers; Ferromanganese . "Dumping" (respondents, importers, are . do............. Failure of proof. c.Frankw. LeavittSamuel& andCo. sellingchargedferromanganesewith systematicallyin thisimportingcountry and"at prices substantially less than the actual market value or wholesale price of ferromanganese at the time of exporting such ferromanganese to the United States, in the principal markets of England, after adding to such value or wholesale price the freight and other expenses necessarily incident to the importation and sale thereof in the United States," with the intent in so doing" of injuring the industry of manufacturing ferromanganese in the United States").

121 604 I David Kahn & Benja.- Fountain pens • • :Misbranding . Answer and stip-1 No reasons assigned; dismissed without min Shatkun, doing ulation. nrejudice. business under the firm name and style of Sbatkun & Kahn.

and :Macaroni Macaroni 5861 Southern spa-I Subsidizing Jobbers and their salesmen •...••.... , Answer . , Do. grJl ghetti.Dec.~ Mfg. Co. I 754 H. Sll:ourup and D. E. Groceries Misrepresenting prices charged (through nse of Answer and trial •.. Fa.ilureofproof. Commissioner :Murdock th To~n, partners, combination sales plan). • dissents. sty · g themselves N atioiial Products Co. ~ and misleading advertising and misrepre- and player False & Clark Piano Pianos Answer . I Dismissed 13 I 541 I Story senting prices charged (instruments offered assigned. pianos. without prejudice; no reasons ....rJl.IS: Co. and sold have stenciled thereon false and ficti- rJl tious prices greatly in excess of the prices in- M tended to be and exacted). !;::1 1922.

Jan. u 751 I Crystal Ice & Storage I Ice cream Acquisition of stock of competing corpon.tions, Answer and tria.! I Failure of proof. Co. with the effect of substantially lessening competition and of tending to create a monopoly m the line of commerce involved; in violation of sees. 5 and 7 of the Federal Trade Commission and Clayton Acts respectively.

201 404 I Buffalo Steam Roller Rood machineryd Commercial bribery. (Money, gratuities, and do I No reasons assigned; dismi.<Sed without Co. steam rollers, an entertainment, and payment of expenses of prejudice. kindred products. public officials and their representatives to respondent's place of business to inspect respondent's products.) 201 431 I The Barber Aspha.lt Road-building ma.- Commercial bribery. (Gratuities and entertain- do . l Do. Paving Co. cbinery an similar ment and pa;YJDent of expenses of inspection products. trips of public officials and their representatives to respondent's place of business to inspect respondent's products.) ~ <:.TI CASES IN WHICH ORDERS OF DISCONTINUANCE OR DISMISSAL HAVE BEEN ENTERED-Continued. ~ 00 0) Date of Docket order. No. Respondents. Commodity. Charges. Answer,or stipulation,trial. Reason for discontinuance or dismlssal. --- 1922.

1an.20 432 Dyar Supply Co. Commercial bribery. (Money, gratuities, and Answer and trial •• Failure of proof. entertainment.) 20 433 Chas. Hvass & Co., Commercial bribery. (Money, gratuities, and .. do Do. 1-rj ~yment Inc. entertainment and of expenses of t>1 . public officials and t e\r tet>~nU\tives ton.spondent's place of business to inspect re- ~t:%j spoodent's products(, 20 440 Chamberlain Road . Commercial bribery. Gratuities and entertsin· ..•.. do Do. Machine Co. ment and ~yment of expenses of public of!!- ~ cials and t eir represent\tives to respondent's place of business to inspect respondent's products.) 20 496 Universal Road Ma- l do......................................................... .••.. do No reasons assigned; dismissed without cbinery Co. prejudice. ~ a 20 497 New England Road · Commercial bribery. (Money gratuities, and do . . Do. 0 payment of expenses of public officials and Machinery Co. l their representatives to respondent's place of ts: business to inspect r~ndent's products.) ts:.... bribery. ( ratuities and 20 7C7 Butlalo-Sprlngfleld r Commercial entertain- . . do .............. Do. Ul ~ayment Roller Co. ment and of expenses of public of!!- Ul .... cials and t eir representatives to respondent's 0 place of business to inspect respondent's prod· ucts.) ~ 21 516 The Mountain City . • Subsidizing salesmen............................ Answer . . Do. ~ Mill Co., a corpora- t>1 tion s%ling ttsell 9 The C attanooga Bakery. Ul.... 21 563 Rueckbeim Bros. & l . do . . .••. . .••. .••... Answer and stipu· Do. 0 Eckstein. latton. ~ 21 585 Larabee Flour Mills . • Subsidizing merchants and their salesmen ....... Answer ............ Do. !Jl Corp. 21 589 Ex·Zact Food Prod· .t Subsidizing salesmen ............................ ..... do .............. Do. uctsCo. . . r 21 617 Southern M~. Co ..... .. ..... do ........................................... ..... do .............. Do• 21 805 Newcorn & reen. .... • False and misleading advertising ................ Answer and trial ... Failure of proof. lishm' Feb. 8 810 Abraham Belofslry Razors r Misrepresenting prices expected to be and nor- r...•. do . Business in question carried on by one and Benjamin Cut. mally charged. or the partners trading alone, and not ler, partners, styllng in partnership as alleged in the comthemselves Key- plaint, said partnership having been stone Specialty Co. dissolved some time prior thereto, and neither the partnership nor the individual carrying on the business engaged in interstate commerce.

10 815 Stella Wagner, trad- Embroidery needles .•. f . do ••. . ..•.•... f do . . Failure or proof. ing under the name and style of Wagner ArtCo.,anda.L.M.

Clark.

24 438 The Barr Sales Co . . Rood machinery, cul- Commercial bribery (money, gratuities, and en-f .•... do .••....•.. f No reason assigned. vert pipe, and simi- tertainment, and payment of expenses of lar products. public officials and their representatives to respondent's place of business to inspect respondent's yrooucts).

'1. O'Neil Medicine Proprietary medicine.. , Simulation o trade-mark, advertising: matter,( 24 566 I F. ...•. do ••........•.. Do. I Co. form of contract for special agencies, containers, and ;preparation of competitor, and falsely claiming trad&-mark registration of ~ alleged trade-mark. ~ adoption and use of trade and sale Mislead:ing 24 830 I David Halpern .•.. 1 Manufacture names or (. do •• Respondent not engaged in interstate brands (respondent a New York manufoo- of clothing for men commerce "for five years last past." Ul and boys. turer, tags his clothes "Rochester Fashion Clothes~' lligh "Rochester Grade Clothes," sul H. 0. and ".t<ochester Clothes," without P~J?Or distinguishing marks to show place of ongm. Ul....~ 25 355 I TheAdderMachlneCo.l Typewrit!ngt calcu- System or cumulative rebates or disco~ts cal-, Answer and trial •.. , Evidence not sufficient to support an Ul lating, ana adding culated to cause dealers to confine theu- pur- order; dismissed without prejudice. l':l machines. chases largely or exclusively to respondent's ~ products;• quantity discounts based on aggregate number of machines used by pros~tive purchaser irrespective of their make, With the effect of preventing the small user or purchaser from obtaining the same discounts, and giving an undue advantage to the large purchaser or user.

25 361 I ACCOUlltlng Machine, . do , System of cumulative rebates or discounts cal- l. .... do .••. Do. Co., Inc. eulated to cause dealers to confine their purchases largely or exclusively to respondent's products.• s The language of the complaint with respect to this charge reads: "That the respondent maintains in its business a s~m of ~ving cumulative discounts or rebates in the sale of its products whereby plll"Chasers of its products obtain at the end of each calendar year, or at the end of a definite penod, certain rebates or discounts based and estimated upon the aggregate of the separate purchases made by such dealers during the calendar year or such fixed period; that the said system was and is designed and calculated to cause such purchasers to confine their purchases, either largely or exclusively, to the products of the respondent aod to hinder or prevent respondent's competitors from making sales of similar products to such purchasers except at so low a price as will not only meet the price of the respondent on its separate sales, but will also offset the Joss in rebates or discounts resulting to such purchasers in the event that they divide their purchases during the year between respondent and one or more of its competitors instead of purchasing exclusively from the ~ respond6nt." 00 ~ CASES IN WHICH ORDERS OF DISCONTINUANCE OR DISMISSAL HAVE BEEN ENTERED-Continued. ~ 00 Date of Docket stipulation,l Reason for discontinuance or dlsmlssal. I Respondents. Commodity. Charges. Answer, order. No. or tnal. I 1922.

Feb.25l 362 I Burrou~hs Adding Typewritini!J calcu- System of cumulative rebates or diso:·ounts cal- I Answer and trial .. Evidence not suftlcient to support an Machine Co. lating ana adding culated to cause dealers to confiine their pur- order. machines. chases largely or exclusively to respondent's "rJt"1 products. ti 25 36. The DB.!ton Adding .••.• do ...•.•. ...••....•. do •. . .. .. . .•.••.••.....•.•. do ••...•... . Do. 1=1 Machine Co. 25 365 Ellis Adding Type- ..••. do .....•.•.........•.•. do . .•. ... . . .•....•......•... do .....••.•.•.. 1 Do. write.r Co. ~ 25 366 Int&national Money Do. Machine Co. 1-i 25 367 Marcha.n t CB.!cula.ting Do. ~ Machine Co. :::::::::::::::::::::::1::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::: > 25 369 Rockford Milling M ... Do. t:lt=j chine Co. 25 370 Teetor Adding M8- Do. 0 chine Co. :::::::::::::::::::::::1::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::: 0 machinery (money, gratuities, and en-( .•.•. do .. . ( Failure of proof. and Commercill.! bribery: Jla.r. 8 .a7 1. D. Ada.ms & Co ••.. Road ~ kindred products. tertainmen t; and J'aymen t or expenses of public officials an their representatives to ~..... respondent's place of business to inspect r&spondent's products). 8l ..... Ship Harper, chandlery sup- Commercial.! bribery W. 8 SOB Adolphe (cash commissions and gr...l ..... do .••. l No reason B.Ssigned. 0 plies. tuities). trading under the the na.me and style l2l of A. W. Harper ti Ship Chandlery. t=l 91 702 I Western Electric Co., Telephonic appliances, Tying and exclusive contracts in violation of Answer ! Do. 0 Inc. e9.uipment, and sup- sees. 5 and 3 of the Federll.! Trade Commission ..... plies. and Clayton Acts; misrepresentations conct'rn· Ul...... ing and affecting the use of competitors' appli- 0 ances, using influence of banks to induce pur- l2l chase or respondent's supplies, pr<X'Uring or pl attempting to procure cancellation or contracts for purchase or equipment from competitors, 11.nd misrepresenting competitors' plans, ail in violation or sec. 6 or the Federll.! Trade Commission Act.

15 259 Oldbury-E 1 e c t r o - Perchlorate of potash .• Combining or conspiring to cut o:ti competitors' Answer and trill.! ••. I No reasons assigned; dismissed without Chemical Co., J. L. supplies. prejudice. & D. S. Ricker, Inc., and Central Railway Signll.! Co.

,.

15 762 1 Dixie Manufacturing 1 Razors ..•. ML<:representing prices expected to be and usu- . do . 1 Respondent corporation by operation of Co., Inc. ally charged; false and misleading advertising law has ceased to exist. and misrepresenting respondent's business status and dealings.

18 846 A. S. Fox, trading un- Automobile tires .•.••. Appropriation of corporate name of competitor No reasons assigned; dismissed without der the name and as a trade name. prejudice. style of Franklin Tue & Rubber Co., and L. Goodman.

20 674 Davidson, Seay, Ad- Poultry, eggs, and I Cutting otl competitors' supplies . J Answer and trial...J No reasons assigned. ams Co. other produce. Apr. 3 757 Burk-Rex Oil Co. and Capital stock .•. False and misleading advertising and mislead-, do ..•.......... , Failure of proof. James A. Buie. ing course of conduct. 718 Wood &Co .•...•..... Coffee, teas, and spices.f Tying or exclusive contracts or dealings in viola- . . do.. . • • • • . . . . . . No reasons assigned. • tion of sees. 5 and 3 of the Federal Trade Com- mission and Clayton Acts, respectively .• 719 Commercial Import- . do ...........•. I..... do .•.••. .••.••.. .l ..... do ••.•......•.. Do. • ing Co., Inc. Do. 720 Richardson do. 1· ·· .. do. land, Inc. & Hol- . . do ...... ·· 1· ·· .. • 721 D. Davies & Co .... . do . do .••....•.••.•. . ...•...... . do .••.•.. Do. 0 Matthews & Kerr,Inc ...... do .•........ do .••. ..••..... . ..•.... . . do Do. • >rJl 723 & Tea Coffee ..••. do •................. do ..................••.. .. .......•.. do . .•. Do. • ttl Defianceeo., Inc. • 722 rJl 724 Martm Marks Coffee . . do ...• . . do . Do. • Co. 8 595 Oil Co........... Capital stock Dove •.....•... False and misleading advertising ..••.••.. . , .. do .• Do. srJl 732 Winthrop Chemical Verona! •. .•.•..•... False and misleading advertising. (Respondent, .•.•• do 10 . "The patent in question expired Feb. 14, Co., Inc. claiming under a patent and trade-mark pur- 1922, and the commission's license chased of the Alien Property Custodian during der such patent automatically expired un- ....rJl~ the war, advertised that it alone made genuine with the patent, and therefore the com- rJl verona!, the fact being that prior thereto the mission has no jurisdiction in the prem- ttl Federal Trade Commission licensed three con- ises." ~ cerns, not including respondent, under the "Trading with the enemy act," to make and sell the preparation theretofore known as verona!.) GroceriesKay. 607 Iowa-Nebi'8Ska-Min- and food Combining and conspiring to cut ol! supplies reasons assigned. Dismissed without of 1· .... do 1 No nesota Wholesale products. nonmember comf.etitors through "boycott, prejudice. Grocers Assn., Its threats of boycot, withdrawal of patronage, officers and mem- and threats of the same, and by various other bers. means" of coercion directed at the manufacturers from whom they purchased.

• The complaint, omitting the routine and formal allegations, charges that respondent "Loans to proprietors of hotels, restaurants, and other places where meals are served to the public, sets of coffee urns '" '" ·~which urns are l06I1ed as aforesaid without consideration other than that the customers receiving same, at the instance and request o respondent,enter into agreements or unaerstsndings with respondent that they will thereafter purchase from respondent all coffee, teas, and spices con.•umed by them in carrying on their respective business; that the practice * * * has a dangerous tendency unduly to hinder competition * * *"• and that the effect thereof "May be to substantially lessen competition in, and create a monopoly in, the line of commerce herein" involved. t+:>-.

t.::> CASES IN WHICH ORDERS OF DISCONTINUANCE OR. DISMISSAL HAVE BEEN ENTERED-Continued. ~ c.o Date of Docket stipulation, Respondents. Commodity. Charges. Answer, order. No. or trial. Reason for discontinuance or dismissal. 1922.

J4ay 5 616 Quaker Oil Products Oils (for leather, tex- Commercial bribery (money and gratuities) .•... Answer and trial. •• No reasons assigned. Cor-p. tile, and metal industries). ":! 6 733 E. F. Houghton & Co .. Textile soaps and Commercial bribery (cash commissions) •.....•.. . . do ..••.••. Do. 1."1 greases. stock •..•.•.... False and misleading advertising In connection ..... do .•..•..•.••.. Do. ~ 8 756 llucklestone Oil Co. Capital and N. Mucklestone. with the sale of oil stock. -- --·- --· ---· - - ---- -· - ~ ~ ~ 1."1 1S:

1S: ..... m 0 !21 t:l 1."1 .....0 Ui.....

!21 !Jl CASES DISMISSED. 491