The Bridgeport times and evening farmer. (Bridgeport, Conn.) 1918-1924, 1918-02-25

Thirty-four of the complaints were
against varnish makers, three against
makers of printing ink, and one
against soap factory.
In addition the commission has
granted the request of number OF
other concerns which admitted the
practices complained of and asked for
consent orders to avoid publicity in
having their affairs investigated.
large number of other cases still are
under consideration.
The 80 firms city today were given
80 days to reply and were ordered 10
appear for hearing on April 3.
The GIidden Varnish Co. of Cleve-
land, was charged with attempting to
stifle and SUPPRESS competition by
Systematically and on large scale"
giving employees of customers, pros
pective customers and competitors
customers gratuities such as liquor, ci-
gars, meals, theatre tickets, valuable
presents and entertainment. Secret
payments'' also were alleged to nave
been made to employees to influence
purchases from the Glidden Varnlsh
Co. or to stop purchases from the com.
pany's competitors.
Virtually identical complaints were
issued against the Columbus Varnish
Co, Columbus, O.; Flood & Conklin
Co., Newark, N. j.; Walter Trainer co.
Philadelphia; N. z. Graves Co., Phil
adelphia; Van Camp Varnish Co.
Cleveland; Sun Varnish Co. Louisville
Lilly Varnish Co., Indianapolis; Nc
Closkey Varnish Co., Philadelphia,
Lindeman Wood Finishing Co., Shell
byville, Ind; Valentine & Co., New
York; Bridgeport Wood Finishing Co..
New Milford, Conn; George D. Web
erill &, Co., Inc, Philadelphia; Reli-
ance varnish Works, Newark, N. j.
! Blackburn Varnish CO., Cincinnatii
Frank W. Thurston Varnish Co., Chi.
cago; Grand Rapids Varnish Co., Grand
Rapids, Mich; National Varnish Co.
Long Island City, N. Y; Standard
Varnish Works, New York; Mayer &
Loewenstein, New York; Boston Var
nish Co., Boston; Louisville Varnist
Co., Louisville; Murphy Varnish Co.
Louisville; Murphy Varnish Co., New
ark. N. J.; Marietta Paint & Color Co.
Marietta, O.; O'Neil Oil & Paint Co.
Milwaukee, Wis; Grand Rapids WooG
SO.3~ L Idlu 1Gop1NS5 L Vi w
Varnish Co., Cleveland; Lawrence
McFadden Co., Philadelphia; Pratt
Lambert, Inc. Buffalo; Rockford Var.
nish Co., Rockford, Ill; Charles R
Wiborg Co., Cincinnati; all makers Of
| varnish and kindred products.
| The Essex Varnish Co. of Newark
N J., was charged with having beer
guilty of the same practices and il
addition with having paid employe:
| large sums of money to adulterate anG
spoil varnish, lacquer and japan solo
or offered for sale by it's competitors
Attempts to stif1e competition BY
gratuities and payments of money t.
employees were charged against the
Eagle Printing Ink Co., Sigmund-Ull
man Co., and J. NJ. Huber, all maker:
of printing ink, of New York. ant
against the Warren Soap Mfg. Co. OF
| Boston.
New Milford, Feb. 25-The Bridge
port Wood Finishing Co., mentioned
among concerns charged with unfail
trade practices, has been long estab
lished here On Nov. 81, after a meet
ing of the stockholders, it was an
nounced that the company had beer
bought by the Du Points. powder max
ers. although from Wilmington came
denial of this, in spite OF an oficia
I announcement o. sale.