The Bridgeport evening farmer. [volume] (Bridgeport, Conn.) 1866-1917, 1913-01-08
KELLOGG SUIT IS
SURPRISE TO FIRM
Head of Cereals Company Issues
Statement on Eve of His
Departure to South
America

america
The action of Attorney General
wtckersham in bringing an action
against the Kellogg Toasted Corn
Flake Co. of Battle Creek, Mich, I'M
der the Sherman antitrust law, has
occansioned widespread surprise in
manufacturing circles and those most
around grocery trade regarding the
Government expectations in the pres
ent suit.
According to leading members of the
grocery trade, there appears to be
some misunderstanding on the part OF
of the Government attorneys as to GER
tain important facts. The Kellogg Co.
has contracts at all with wholesale
or retail grocers and has always main
tanned absolute independence Of other
There is suspicion that the Attor-
ey-Genera1 may have a seni-friend-
ly purpose in bringing the suit. select
able defendant on which to test the
meaning of the Sherman Law as it ap-
plies to the price maintenance without
contracts and collision.
w. H. Kellogg is now on his way to
South America and his first informa-
ton regarding the suit came from the
fore he sailed. Mr.. Kellogg declined
to state just what action his COM
pany will take in the matter till he
knew more about the case and under
stood just what the company is
"AiI I care to say now" said Mr.
Kellogg, lis that the whole matter is
a complete surprise to us. We adopted
our policy with a very honest desire
not only to conform to the letter of
the law, but to its spirit. and the
selling plan are the very things for
which we understood the Sehrnan Law
and other conspiracy laws were de-
signed-t1e protection of the consumer
and small dealer the U
of opportunity enjoyed by trusts and
big buyers If these things are con-
trary to law, we shall be much sur
prised.
I'VE are surprised to find ourselves
charged with exacting contracts from
jobbers in the grocery trade. because
we have no contracts with the trade
whatever and will have no trouble in
proving it.
1--WE have acted under the best legal
advice and supposed we were entirely
within our rights as owners of our
own brand of goods, upon which wide-
spread public approval has placed the
stamp Of quality.
About three months ago an agent
of the Department of Justice called on
US and investigated our selling plan
We fully explained it to him and he
were acting legally. He regarded our
dealings as free from both conspiracy
to promote equility between big and
little trader.
CAS- a matter of fact, our company
has adopted and enforced its policy
The history Of the many breakfast
food failures is that they have been
sold on a speculative basis; bought in
too large quantities by the grocers,
in order to get low prices, and in con-
sequence went to the consumer stale
and inferior. Quantity prices allowed
vantages. Quick distribution between
factory and consumer-which is essen
tia1 is a pershabIe product-~as de-
feated.
'Our whole aim has been to keep
our goods moving and to place them
in the hands of as many grocers as
for every little corner grocery to har-
die, free from unfair favoritism usu-
ally shown his big competition in or
der that the consumer may get them
a sure and quick distribution was
necessary and statistics show that the
surest way 20 secure it is to deal only
through the wholesalers, leaving them
to sell retailers.
cit has been the means of placing
our goods in the hands Of not less
ner of the country and on a, basis
Of absolute equality.
"Of course, this has drawn the en-
nifty of the big dealers who enjoyed
special privileges from some manufac-
turers and we have encountered much
opposition To protect ourselves and
consurners@it has been necessary to
decline to sell our goods to dealers
who would use the money for unfair
competition land not only injure us
but other dealers and ultimately the
consumer.
ANY suggestion that we are mon
opo1y is laughable. There are not less
than 100 other kinds of corn flakes
on the market all in competition with
ours, and we have no connection with
any of them We regard the patent
question as a minor issue. Our pa
tented package was designed just as
our selling policy was, to keep the
tents after the package was opened.
If there was anything unpatentable
about the package that surely does
not affect our fundamental rights to
deal with our property as we choose.
1--WE are not certain as yet just
gard to the suit. IF we are doing
anything illegal, we propose to quit it,
but if a policy aimed at sure, efficient
and economical distribution, equal
profits for the big and little dealer
alike, ard fresh goods TO the con-
or any other law it is time we found
it out
Gas matter of fact, we can show
that our policy has greatly increased
the size of our package and reduced
the price to the consumer from hf-
to the widespread distribution promot-
ed and made possible by our advertis-
ing and our policy of equality
MOTHERS PENSION
nil HnrR0nH0F