Stephenville Daily Empire (Stephenville, Tex.), Vol. 1, No. 179, Ed. 1 Thursday, May 11, 1950 Page: 5 of 6
six pages : ill. ; page 24 x 19 in. Digitized from 35 mm. microfilm.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
,r
i,
* Li . *
rv.-5l.4a ■
.....a
. v '• ; ■
* "• ’f .. - »rr *■
•V*“ •• I
ffjjg ' jg
v
' "’f • . • 1
£.* ■ V! I.' -i-sA.'-.**.**-a ;}.; .<-< .4..».
"■ ■■ ,
- .
\
1
• .
,
1»--» _,^g^"aas»f
I .
f • * 1#
-
, < if;;; •■-; .'T-:— —
, - ‘v?.'—* '• *• ^rf-4 - y —.......' vt "■•* * ~r
us4*ay
' ■ ■■.n4*rj
i ■
'
;, v 1 .* *
■1
tnx-f
. •-* *r» vrv
#SSfi
' *TTtf.....f*“ 'T~' ” ’• ’ T^"vf • ^
/■ < ' . ' -4~4'^.-r '
! ' ?;' '
%* ' ' ■ :‘V» jtl -.#
Anti-Trust Lawyers
Case Against A&P
As ahnott everyone now knows, the aatfetrust lawyers in Wa^ington have brought a civil suit to destroy A&P*
They ask the eourts to order the dissolution of this company.
They say that this soil is based eft the lact that they won a suit against us at Danville, Illinois, in 1946.
They did In that case, Federal Judge Waites C. Lmdley made a decision against A&P.
1
Immediately thereafter, in a letter explaining his decision, Judge Lindley wrote:
-“7 . ■
^ ,
7 have not condemned the ,
........................“M*................
I have not made
- ;S> .
be the basis for
*-~yH \ 1 -
So, neer we have the anti-trust lawyers saying that their suit to dissolve A&P » based on Judge Lindley's decision;
white Judge Lindley himself says his decision could not be the basis for a suit of dissolution.
b ptevfetus we tokfyou about the cases against A&P which the anti-trust lawyers lost. We promised to tell
you about this case they wosa Here is'the story of the Danville case.
What Judge Lmdley Objected T<
larges which they are
charge* thfjr had rqfldc
to some of them as “in
a» * % ■ r
again making
, __—. . .. T -T<s and dropped
after four federal judges had'objected to some of them as ‘Inflammatory.”
In his decision, Judge Lindley was critical of some of our activities. He threw some of
fthochargesfouttof court. He did not make any decision on others.
No era nr took occasion to praise A&P for the efficient job of food distribution it had done.
JVxtg* Lindtey said:
“To buy, Bell and distribute to a substantial portion of tS&jOQ&flOO people, one
tmd ibuaMnkr k&tien deHart worth of food annually at a profit of / V2 cents
on each dollar, is an achievement one may wed be proud of,
“No place in the world / take it are people so well fed as in the United States. No-
where else, l suppose, do food distributors accomplish efficient distribution at so
low a margin of profit In contrast, woe are told in other nations the problem is not
one of an adequate diet bat one of no diet at tdl.”
But Judge Lindley did find us in violation of the Sherman Act He Based1 his ruling on the
dtnd role played by our fresh fruit and vegetable buying subsidiary, the Atlantic Commission
Company, whereby that organization acted both as buying agent for A&P and as selling
agent for growers.
Judge Lindley said:
“If t assume far the purpose of disposition of this case that m general the policy
of A&P was to operate within the hue and attribute to defendants a desire to
comply with the law, there still remains the conscious, knowing adoption by all
defendants of a plan of action by the Atlantic Commission Company affecting
every department of A&P and every retail store which cannot be squared with
the intent and purpose of the aet.**
In his letter explaining the decision, Judge Lindley wrote: *Thave eendemnod their prao-
ticee through the Atlantic Commission Company”
Judge Lindley imposed fines totaling $175,000. When his decision was upheld by the Circuit
Court of Appeals in Chicago, we paid the fines. This ended the case—but we did not stop there.
What We Did To Correct This
Iri the'Kght of Th<ntefcision, we immediately set about reviewing our activities to be sure
That there* could nevfer again be any criticism of our operations.
First, the Atlantic Commission Company abandoned the dual role to which Judge Lindley
objected and which he said was the basis of his decision against us.
We did this even though the Atlantic Commission Company had been licensed far
many years by the United States Department of Agriculture to act as both a buyer
and seller of fresh fruits and vegetables.
The Atlantic Commission Company now only buys for A&P. In other words, we stopped
doing the thing which Judge Lindley said put as in violation of the Sherman Act.
We made additional changes in other methods of operation which Judge Lindley
had questioned at Danville, even though he did not base his decision on them.
We did even more than this! '
We went down to Washington and asked the anti-trust lawyers what else they thought
we should do to conform to their new interpretation of the vague anti-trust laws.
The only answer we ever got was that we should break ap this eomptuty!
Despite their claim that they were not opposed to A&P’s size, they insisted that
we destroy this size.
Despite their claim that they were not opposed to our manufacturing operations,
they insisted that we get rid of our factories which produce many of the fine foods
you buy at A&P.
Despite their claim that they were not opposed to our low prices, they insisted that
we destroy many of the efficiencies that make these low prices possible.
In other words, they insisted upon1 the dissolution of A&P.
We were still trying to find out from the anti-trust lawyers what1 else they thought
we should do to conform to the law when they filed the current suit to destroy A AF.
Wky, Then, Do They Want To Put A&P Out Of Business?
jkjgi oM •• ;
■.........
Ever since this suit wts filed, the anti-trust lawyers have been making damaging statements
that could seriously hurt our business if they were believed by the public.
■' 'V: '■■'•y ',v >. jr ’• # *y*», * •
They sky that we were foWN# guOlp a* DhaviHe of all the charges they are making today.
This i* not true. Judge Lindtey did unit sustain all of the charges of the anti-
tract lawyers.
They my this suit i# designed to anforeo the taw.
B'uf A&P has clearly demonstrated its sincere desire to abide by the spirit, ae
well as the letter of the law.
They say they are sacking to “enjoin” A&P from engaging in certssn “alleged” practices.
Aofualtyr the whole purpose of this suit it not to “enjoin” us, but to put us out
of bumneee /
They say that this suit for dissolution is based on the decision handed down by Jbdfct
Lindley in Donvttto.
But fudge Lindley has said of Hit decision: “I have not made a finding which
coddbathe basic for a sad# of dissolution.” ^ „ /
Whet, then, is the real reason why thy enffi-teust lawyer* went to dfertroy th
which for yeon has pioneered <lig Mk&ndL of distribution which
)
.\y
X_;
THE GREAT ATLANTIC &
A
iM
&■■■.&mi*'-'
&V,-. t &■'
im
v
PACIFIC TEA COMPANY
'S I
r'Tyree too^'Miyi *>• '*
/ .
'
, . v'- *
/
:' i
\
l
iM
■m
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.
Stephenville Daily Empire (Stephenville, Tex.), Vol. 1, No. 179, Ed. 1 Thursday, May 11, 1950, newspaper, May 11, 1950; Stephenville, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1133345/m1/5/: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Dublin Public Library.