The Texas Mesquiter (Mesquite, Tex.), Vol. 67, No. 33, Ed. 1 Friday, February 10, 1950 Page: 4 of 6
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: The Texas Mesquiter and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the Mesquite Public Library.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
WW, t
PAGE 4
THE TEXAS MESQUITER
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1950
The Third Time The
Anti-Trust Lawyers Were Wrong!
•:r -> — - t } V
Is it a crime to give people more good food for their money?
For 90 years A&P has devoted all its energies to this end. ... ^
For many months now the anti-trust lawyers from Washington have been giving stories to the news-
papers, making speeches and talking over the radio about this company.
They have been making serious and damaging allegations about the methods that enable A&P to
give its customers better food values.
We have already told you about other times the anti-trust lawyers made charges against us that
were proved utterly false in court.
In the left-hand column on this page you can read what the federal judges had to say about those
two cases.
Now we are going to tell you about the third time a federal judge decided against the anti-trust lawyers!
ft •;
i
What Has Gone Before
Today’s ad is the third in a series telling
about times the anti-trust lawyers made
serious and damaging charges against A&P
that the courts decided were not true.
In the first ad in this series we told you about the time
the anti-trust lawyers charged that A&P. and other
good American citizens, conspired to fix the price of
bread in Washington,
These charges were false.
That was the time Federal Judge T. Alan
Goldsborough instructed the jury to bring
in a verdict of “not guilty”.
It was the time he said to the anti-trust lawyers:
“If you were to show this record to any
experienced trial lawyer in the world,
he would tell you that there was not any
f evidence at all.
“Honestly, l have never in my over forty
years’ experience seen tried a case that
was as absolutely devoid of evidence
\ as this. That is the honest truth. I have
never seen one like it.”
But that was not the only time the anti-trust lawyers
made such serious “allegations” against A&P which
were false.
In our second ad we told you about the time
in Wilson, North Carolina, they charged
A&P’s fresh fruit and vegetable buying sub-
sidiary, and other good American citizens,
with conspiring to fix and depress prices
paid farmers for potatoes in North Carolina,
Virginia and Maryland.
Here again, as in the Washington bread case, the charges
were false.
This was the time Federal Judge C. C.
Wyche directed the jury to bring in a ver-
dict of “not guilty”.
It was the time he said to the anti-trust lawyers:
“l have studied this case from the very
outset. In my opinion there is no testi-
mony produced from which it can rea-
sonably be inferred that the defendants
i entered into a combination to depress
or lower the price of potatoes.
J ‘7 might say that I never tried a case in
my life where a greater effort, more
work, more investigation had been
done, combing almost with a fine-tooth
FJf comb to gather evidence, as was done
in this case.
J
“ “But, as was said a long time ago, you
canft make brick without straw, and
you canyt make a case without facts.”
So here were two cases in which the anti-trust lawyers
made seriously damaging charges against A&P, in which
the judge decided that there were no facts to support
those charges.
Today, we want to tell you about the third
time—this time in Dallas, Texas—the court
decided against the anti-trust lawyers.
§
f
The Dallas Anti-Trust Suit
in 1942 the anti-trust lawyers went out to Dallas,
Texas, 1,400 miles from the homes of most of
the defendants, and instigated criminal charges
against A&P.
About this case one thing was sure.
Their previous experience did not deter the anti-trust lawyers
from making more inflammatory and damaging allegations,
just as they had done before.
They made practically the same allegations they
are making today.
Federal Judge W. H. Atwell ruled that the case should not
even be tried. He said that the indictment contained inflam-
matory statements that he would not permit to be presented
to a jury.
% i
Judge Atwell said to the anti-trust lawyers:
“If I thought I was presiding over a court and
that I might have to sentence some person
because he was a great big fellow, or because
he was a Lilliputian, I would feel like resign-
ing. God knows we don91 want it ever to occur
in America that the size is going to determine
whether a man is guilty or innocent99
r
Judge Atwell also said to the anti-trust lawyers:
“If the indictment is not good then it is better
to find out before an expensive trial than it is
after an expensive trial. I do not think it
is good, and thinking that, it is my duty to
sustain the demurrers and motion to quash ”
In short, Federal Judge Atwell threw the anti-
trust lawyers and their case right out of his court.
So that makes three times that the anti-trust lawyers made
damaging allegations against A&P. In two of these cases
federal judges said they were all wrong. In the third case a
federal judge said that the indictment was inflammatory and.
he would not even permit the case to be tried. »
The anti-trust lawyers were not satisfied with the Dallas
decision.
Neither were they satisfied with the two other decisions in
which federal courts administered stinging rebukes to them.
They were still determined to destroy A&P.
In our next ad we will tel! you how they con-
tinued their campaign in this case in the Circuit
Court of Appeals and subsequent proceedings.
We will show you how, once again, they dis-
agreed with the courts.
Everything that has happened since this suit was filed proves that the American people don’t want A&P
destroyed.
A deluge of letters from people in all walks of life and thousands of editorials in newspapers and
magazines convince us that the public has faith in A&P.
The housewives of this nation, whose patronage has made this company big, are buying from us am
increasing numbers and increasing volume.
Our suppliers, whom the anti-trust lawyers allege we have exploited, are rushing to our support.
Labor leaders, mindful of the fact that A&P employees enjoy the best wages, hours and working
conditions, are taking a stand against the suit.
Even many of our good competitors, who the anti-trust lawyers allege are hurt by our competition,
have taken ads to tell the public that they don’t like this attack on A&P.
All this indicates that the American people realize that the suit to destroy A&P is really a suit against
efficiency, against low prices and against real competition. * r
Apparently most Americans do not want to let the anti-trust lawyers in Washington blow the whistle
on any businessman who does a better and more efficient job and grows big in the process.
No one can make them believe it is a crime to try to sell the best quality food at the lowest possible price.
wk
i m
L.
« THE GREAT ATLANTIC-rPACIFIC TEA COMPANY
«
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Cook, Corinne Neal. The Texas Mesquiter (Mesquite, Tex.), Vol. 67, No. 33, Ed. 1 Friday, February 10, 1950, newspaper, February 10, 1950; Mesquite, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1090164/m1/4/: accessed April 23, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Mesquite Public Library.