The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1918-02-25
SO FACTORIES
BRANDED AS
''UNFAIR" BY
GOVERNMENT
Unhealthy Condition - in
Certain Lines of Industry
Shown-34 Against Var
nish Makers.
ONE At SHELBYV|LLE.

WASHINGTON, Feb. %. Com
plants charging unfair trade practices
were issued today by the federal trade
commission against thirty-eight manu-
featuring firms, as the result of long
and intensive investigation which has
revealed "a very serious and unhealthy
condition in certain lines of industry"
1t was the largest number of COM
plants ever issued at one time by the
commission.
Thirty-four of the complaints were
against varnish makers, three against
manufacturers of printing ink and one
against soap factory.
Others are Skilled.
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. A
large number of other cases still are
under consideration.
The SO firms cited today were given
80 days to reply and ordered to appear
for hearing April 8.
The Glidden Varnish Company of
Cleveland, o., was charged with at
tempting to stifle and suppress compe-
tition by unsystematically and on a
large scale giving employees of Gus
toners, prospective customers and
customers competitors gratuities such
as liquor, cigars, meals theatre tickets,
valuable presents and entertainment.
Secret payments" also We're alleged
to have been made to employees to in
fluence purchases from the Glidden
Varnish Company or to stop purchases
from company's competitors.
Other Complaints.
Practically identical complaints
were issued against the Columbus
Varnish company, Columbus. o.;
Flood and Conklin company, Newark,
N. j.: Walter L. Trainer Company,
Philadelphia; N. 2. Graves Corpora
ton, Philadelphia; Van Camp Varnish
company, Cleveland, O.; Sun Varnish
company. Louisville, KY; Lilly Warn
ish company, indianapolis, Ind: Nc
Closkey Varnish company, Philadel-
phia Lindeman Wood Finishing
company. Shelbyville, Ind; Adams &
Elting company, Chicago, Ill.,; Valen-
tine & company, New York City;
Bridgeport Wood Finishing company,
New Milford, Conn; George D. Weth-
erill & company, Inc, Philadelphia.
Pa; Reliance Varnish Works, New
ark, n. j.: Blackburn Varnish COM
pany. Cincinnati, O.: Frank w. Thurs
ton Varnish company, Chicago. ILL.,;
Grand Rapids Varnish company, Grand
Rapids, Mich: National Varnish COM
pany, Long Island City: Standard
Varnish Works. New York; Mayer &
Loewenstin. New York; Boston Warm
ish company, Boston. Mass; Louis
vile Varnish company, Louisville, Ky;
Murphy Varnish company, Newark, n.
j.: Marietta Paint & Color company,
Marietta, O.: O'Neil OIL and Paint
company, Milwaukee, Wis; Grand
Rapids Wood Finishing company,
Grand Rapids, Mich; Forbes Varnish
company, Cleveland. O.; Lawrence
McFadden company. Philadelphia;
Phatt & Lambers. Inc, Buffalo, N. v:
Rockford Varnish company, Rockford,
H.; Charles R. Long. Jr. company,
Louisville, Ky; Ault & Wiborg COM
pany, Cincinnati, all manufacturers of
varnish and kindred products.
The Essex Varnish company of
Newark, n. j., was charged with hav-
ing been guilty of the same practices
and in addition with having paid en-
ployes Large sums of money to adul-
terate and spoil varnish. lacquers and
Japans sold or offered for sale by its
competitors"
Attempts to stffle competitions by
gratuities end payments of money to
Eagle Printing Ink company, Sigmund-
Ullman Company, and J. NJ. Huber, all
manufacturers of printing ink, of New
York, and against the Warren Soap
Manufacturing company of Boston.