Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-09-19
LAUNDRY WAR IS ON
Model Asks Injunction Against
the Exchange.
SAYS COMBINATION EXISTS
Violation of Antitrust Law Is
Charged
THERE ARE II DEFENDANTS
Suit Filed Today in District Su-
preme Court Through Attorney
William E. Ambrose.
THERE ARE II DEFENDANTS

Alleging that a combination has been
formed among the local laundry concerns
of Washington, the purpose of which is to
drive out of business all competing con-
Germs in violation of the Sherman anti
trust act, the Model Laundry Company of
ITO E street. through it's attorney, Will
liam f. Ambrose. filed a request in the
form of an injunction In the Supreme
Court of the District this morning pray
ing the court to restrain the association
the Washington Laundrymen's Exchange
from interfering with it's business F. v.
Killian of the Franklin laundry and ten
other laundries of the city are named
as defendants. 1t is asked additionally
that the injunction be made permanent.
The bill of complaint alleges that July
% last the defendants and the complain
ant. representing practically all of the
laundry interests in the city, met for the
purpose of forming a laundrymans ex-
change. which was done. Later, it is as
serted, bylaws and regulations were pro-
mulgated, which, according to the COM
plainant. were unsatisfactory to him and
his associates in the Model laundry, and
they did not affiliate with the exchange.
The bill alleges that since then the sew
eral members of the exchange have Gre
ated a fund for the purpose of driving
the Model laundry out of business and
have so far succeeded that the present
business of the company Is at low ebb.
Employing Drivers.
The complainant alleges that in the de-
PENDANTS efforts to ruin the business OF
the Model Laundry Company they have
attempted, and in some instances have
succeeded, in employing drivers of the
Model Laundry Company through whom
greater part OF the laundry business Is
controlled. and have made threats to es-
Establishments selling laundry supplies
that they would be boycotted in the fu-
ture by members of the exchange If they
continued to sell their goods to the COM
plainant.
The bill alleges that the business of the
complainant has been injured in many
other ways at the instigation of the de-
PENDANTS not mentioned above.
The complaint alleges that the defend
ants and each of them illegally COM
bined. confederated and cOnspired to form
a combination to ruin the business of the
complainant and to SO impoverish and
harass 1t as to ruin its credit, deprive 1t
of its business and force it's retirement
from the field of competition with those
so confederating. conspiring and com
bining.
That the defendants have illegally and
unlawfully combined, confederated and
conspired and have entered into con-
tractural relations one with the other to
destroy all competition in the laundry
business in the District of Columbia and
nfiictinE 4 public injury In order that
they. the defendants may enrich them
selves
The complaint states that the " hole
matter was brought about by the Model
laundry insisting upon doing certain
laundry work at a cheaper rate than
those laundries owned by the defendants
and that the complainant refused to be
dictated to as to the manner of employ
ing its laundry staff
Various Defendants.
The several defendants to the complaint
are F. v. Killian. proprietor of the Frank
lin laundry: F. II. Walker and Frank
Smith of the Yale laundry, Frederick w.
Mckenzie and James P. Tolman of the
Tolman laundry, c. l.. Sewers of the Co.
lumbia laundry. T. P. Wilcox of the Elite
laundry, E. B. Ferren of the West End
laundry. George F. Page and James N.
Ellsworth of the Manhattan laundry.
Daniel Kopp OF the Sterling laundry. II