Evening journal., 1918-01-29


gate and Company taking all th'
chance and do they not have to NEE
their competitors on that basis? L
they reason, as they do with force
I that every merchant. must make
leCtomate proilt; that for every prof
lost on Their goods q double profit mus
be made on something else, then the,
would seem TO be doubly justified, fol
/ they have not only their own but th,
/ interests Of their consumer as well al
stake
Now. neither the Sherman act moi
/ the Clayton act covers the facts Of the
Colgate case by any express language
| II a contract had been sought binding
the retailer TO a scale OF prices, thai
would have been clearly Illegal. But
Colgate and Company merely sought
to exercise the right Ito select their
own customers" which was expressly
preserved in the Clayton act. Mo g.
over In the only case which has come
before the courts presenting the pre-
else facts of the Colgate case Judge
Hough. in the District Court. squarely
upheld the Colgate practice. That opin-
Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Com
pany agt Cream Of Wheat Company
22d Fed. Rep 5s6l ably rebuts the
present contention Of the attorney
general. Judge Hough took the broad
ground that il is price cutting which
really rest~ans trade and lessons com
petition. and that the maintenance OF
fair scale Of retail prices is all In
the interest Of the buying public. He
said:
II injunction were granted defendant
and microscopic benefit TO a small por-
ton Of the public would last only I'M
tI plaintiff was relieved from the COM
petition Of the ti-cent g~ocers, when
10, too, would charge what the bust
ness would normally and naturally
bear. In short, II is plaintin and not
defendant that pursues methods whose
hardship and injustice have often Deen
iudicially commented upon.
When an effort was made to amend
the Clayton act by the passage or a law
legalizing contracts fixing retail prices,
the great objection raised was mat IL
would work hardship on the retailer
who happened 10 be left with a stock
which he could not dispose Of. That
objection, of course, does not apply to
The practice of Colgate & Co That
practice leaves the retailer in entire |
freedom TO dispose of his stock as he |
Wills. 1t reserves to Colgate & Co only |
he right to protect their name and |
heir customers by refusing to SELL 1
through retailers whose methods OF /
business are menace to everybody /
Colgate & Co. are but one Of a large /
md steadily increasing number OF /
American merchants who have come to /
'ealize that it is entirely possible for |
,reat manufacturing enterprise TO deal /
With the public, as an individual would .
ieal with it: to be known almost per- /
,onally for their fair dealing. The day (
II fraudulent ADVERTISING, unfair trad /
ng. public-be-damned methods, is al 1
most done In the day that is coming |
. will be just as keen an offense to [
ell a lie in an advertisement printed in /
/ daily paper as it is today TO tell it in 7.
lpen court, and the merchant who at /
empts to advance his personal inter [
sst at the expense Of the good name of /
1 great American industry. may, let us |
nope be legally frowned upon If the |
of Justice, Notwithstanding |
.he war, finds time hanging heavily on |
It's hands. it should have no difficulty in |
finding more profitable material to |
work upOn