Evening journal., 1918-01-29
A DANGEROUS SUIT
IFrom the New York Trlbune.l }

A suit has been commenced by tho
Attorney General Of tho United States
against Colgate & Co, which threatens
damage TO every American Industry
based upon the possession Of an hon.
ored trade name. That means. indi-
rectly, damage 10 tho entire American
purchasing public.
Tho charge Is that Colgate & Co have
violated the Shrm0n antitrust law and
have acted In rest aint OF trade In that
they have refused to sell their products
10 dealers who fail 10 maintain the Col
gate 4 Co. retail sales price. They
nave not sought 10 bind their retailers
by contract. They have simply exer-
cised what they considered their legal
right, to say what retailers they would
sell 10 II does not appear that Colgate
q Co. have attempted TO interfere with
the manufacture Of similar products by
! others. There has been no intimida-
ton Of the dealer TO prevent the sale OF
| competing lines. 10 is not charged that
they have conspired with any other
manufacturer for any illegal purpose
II is not claimed that they are trvinp
TO control the entire output OF their
particular line. II Is not even intimatrd
that COLGATE & Co. are in any sense OF
The word a trust Their sole and onlv
ouense alleged to have been committed
IS that Of choosing whom they will
deal with and whom they will not.
COLGATE & Co have been in business
Tor it2 years. They maintain that they
have been permitted to enjoy the conf
dence OF the public during their un-
usually long period because of their
own fair dealing with that public
They contend that the good name
which they have established is not only
an asset to their company. but a thing
OF value 10 the public as we'll; that
they have stood behind their name dur /
Ing all Of the time they have been in
business and have spent vast sum of
money to convey to the public its
right TO rely upon their name in its
dealings; that the name Of Colgate &
Co. has, in short, been a guide-post for
shoppers for more than a century.
Ihey further contend that they have
tried to protect the public by placing
their product for sale in only those
stores where their advertising might
lead their customers to fair dealing in
products other than their own: but
that this would not be possible unless
'I'i NSditls ne assured reasonable
prolt upon sales that certain dealers
IN order to attract trade have seen nj
to advertise and sell the Colgate goods
without a profit, and IN some instances
at an actual loss TO themselves: and
Colgate and Company contend that
continuation Of this procedure must
eventually drive their wares from the
shelves Of the merchant who is un-
willing to handle them at a loss: that
this would ruin their system Of mar
ketins their product, for when their
legitimate market has been DESTROYED
the individual who now cuts the price
VIII no longer find it profitable to use
them as a leader.
There can be no question of the de-
STABILITY OF permitting the public to
buy at the lowest possible price: hut
after all, isn't it Just as important
that the public know what it is buying
at the price quoted? And II CoIeate
and Company, selling their products IA
open competition, believe that this Is
what the public wants; n they think
that the public would prefer paying
a definite price for a product concern
ing which it knows rather than half
the price for a product concerning
which 1t knows nothing, are not Coll