Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1916-04-22
Court Decides in Favor
of Protecting Dealer


On March 81 1915, there ended in
the United States District Court. in
Cleveland, Ohio. trial which has last
ed for three weeks, and is of vital in
terest to the dealers throughout the
country.
The suit was one brought by a con-
sumers' league known as the Automo-
bile Cooperative Association of
America, which was organized in New
York in 1908 and went out of business
in 1911. The suit was against the e. f.
Goodrich Company, the Diamond Rub
ber Company, the Firestone Tire and
Rubber Company, the Republic Rubber
Company and the United States Tire
Company.
The Cnsumers' League-the plaintiff
complained that these companies had
refused TO sell tires to it at dealers
prices; that such refusal was the re-
suit of a combined action or conspi-
racy on the part of these companies,
and that the result of such conspiracy
had been to cause this Consumers Lea
que to fail in business. The suit was
brought for $45O,O0O damages under the
Sherman antitrust law.
The fight was continued by the Good
rich, Diamond and Republic companies.
1t appeared from the evidence there
after aken-consisting of testimony of
a number of prominent dealers and of
sufTiCers and branch managers of the
tire companies-that the Goodrich COM
pany had always and consistently re-
fused to sell to clubs, consumers lea
gues and kindred organizations at deal
ers' prices, recognizing that to do so
would be unfair to, and would under
mine the business of, the legitimate
dealers.
Though the court. at the conclusion
of the evidence. decided--and subse-
quently so charged the jury-that no
damages We're proven or could be re-
covered even If the defendants were
guilty under the Sherman law. the de-
PENDANTS were unwilling to stop, but
desired to have the propriety of their
acts passed upon. The matter was one
of principle to us.
So the case was argued before the
jury which has not brought in a ver-
diet completely in favor of the defen-
dant.
The court, in it's charge to the jury
jointed out that the reason stated by
the defendants for not selling to the
plaintiff at dealers prices was that
they were forced to decide between
two alternatives-to deal with the CO.
operative leagues, such as the plain
tiff was assumed to be. and lose the
! business of the regular dealers, or to
say we will not deal with the CO.
operative leagues and we will keep the
favor and the support of the regular
Dealers
Further, the court said:
IF the plaintiff was not entitled to
the consideration accorded to, and re-
ceived by, regular retail dealers in the
ordinary course of trade, then to re-
fuse to deal with them as regular re-
tail dealers was no restraint of trade"
Again, the court said that the jury
would have to ask itself this ques-
tion namely:
Was there any necessity for Mr.
Raymond, representing the Goodrich
company, with its standing in the trade,
to appeal to other tire makers to Join
with il in such an agreement against
| this corporation? Was there any bene-
/ fit TO accrue to the Goodrich Com
pany to do this sort of thing?"
/ And the jury decided in favor of the
defendants.
The Goodrich Company will continue
/ with its uniform and long established
/ policy, which has been and is and will
be to protect its dealers, and refuse to
/ sell at dealers prices to consumers
under whatever form OF association
they may be banded together.