Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1920-05-01
BOTHER CONTRACT
PERPETUAL, LETTER
OF H|RSCHD|ECLARED
Communication From. Coun-
sell for Coca-CoIa Interests
to Florida Concern Is
Read at Hearing II.

A letter written by Harold Hirsch,
member of the law firm of Gambler,
| Thomson & Hirsch general counsel
for the Coca-Cola- company in which
it was stated that: the contract be
| tween the syrup manufacturer. and
the bottlers was perpetual, featured
the hearing Friday morning in the
Coca Cola litigation before Commits
sioner H. L.. Parry. ...s
l. In October, 1915 Mr.. Hirsch
wrote T. C. Parker, of the Florida
'Coca-Cola Bottling company con-
| corning, an amended and reformed
contract which he had prepared, and
| in this communfca ton, which was
read before, the commissioner. the
lawyer. said that the contracts were
perpetual franchises. >. ~.
1t appeared that the Florida Coca
Cola Bottling company entertained
misgivings concerning the acceptance
of the amended and reformed con-
tact, and Mr.. Hirsch, as counsel for
the Coca-Cola company and for the
parent bottlers, wrote the letter n
.question. In this communication he
were as follows: ., .
Chief Considerations
First, that the bottlers must have
their perpetual franchise protected.
Second. that. the Coca-Cola COM
pany must have it's property rights
and valuable trademark protected.
Continuing, the letter recited that
representing both the Coca-Cola COM
pany and the parent bottlers. in
amending the original contracts, and
| that the reformed contracts protect
/ ed, above all and beyond all ques-
| ton, the rights fthe bottlers.
| 1t was developed by Attorney John
/ A, Sibley, who conducted the exami-
nation of Mr. Htrsch. that following
| the letter to the Florida Coca Cola
Bottlirg company, the reformed and
I amended contract was signed "Par-
/ ker." This contract carried a writ
ten approval and confirmation Of c..
Il Gambler the then president of the
Coca-Cola company. Subsequently,
the Florida Coca-Cola Bottling com
pany entered into. a contract with
the Quincy Bottling company, and
in this contract appeared the word
! perpetual" -
Mr.. Hirsch and Mr.. Sibley engag-
/ ed in coloquy concerning the let
ter to Mr.. Parker and the contracts.
/ Mr.. ffirsch stated that he had given
the legal opinion that the contracts
were perpetual contracts, and that he
/ SO Informed the Coca-Cola company.
though his law partners. Judge Can
der and w, D. Thomson, disagreed
! with him t,,.
/ .' Contract Stressed
| Attorney Sibley and other, counsel
FOR the plaintiffs dwelt and laid great
stress upon the fact that Mr..
H1rsch's assurance of the pefpetuity
OF the contracts was given to the
FLORIDA Coca-Cola .Bottting company
because the Florida concern was
disinclined TO accept the amended
contract until this assurance was
| Forthcoming ''
| The reformed contracts, concerning
which the letter was written, and
around which Mr.. Hirsch's exalnina-
| ton conferred, were the res lt of an
agreement on the part of the Coca
Cola company and the parent bottIers
| that the original contracts should be
reformed in order to comply with
certain provisions of the Clayton
| If lou
which resulted in the reformation of
the original contracts extended over
a long period, and Mr.. Hirsch stated
verbally and in letters which were
produced, that as counsel for both
the Coca-Cola company and the bot
tiers he had sought not to disturb
the relations between them. He gave
it as his opinion that. the, rights of
the bottIers had, really been strength
ened under. the terms Of the new con-
tract. . ,s''
Prior to the production of the Flor
ida letter, Mr.. Hirsch was examined
at length : concerning the relations
between the parent bottlers and the
Coca-Cola company. He stated that
his firm, as counsel. for the Coca-Cola
| company. had engaged in much liti-
cation, relating to trade mark in
Engagements. Probably four Or five
hundred suits, he said, had been in
stituted in, different parts of the
country at different times. He said
the expenses of protecting the trade
mark had run into the hundreds of
thousands of dollars.
\ Mr.. Hirsch testified as to the re-
tanning fee annually received by the
firm of Gambler, Thomson & Hirsch,
and requested representatives of the
press to omit the figures, since it
was only a personal matter.
Mr. HiGsch stated further that the
bottlers had rendered aid to the
Coca-Cola company in resisting ad-
verse legislation in the different
states.
The first time said Mr.. Hirsch,
that the bottlers shared in the legal
expenses of the Coca-Cola company
was in 1911, and they contributed
$4,000 towards defraying the eX-
penses OF certain litigation in the
prolectlon OF the lfaue-lnaFh, liz
cost of which was about $250,0O0.
In 1915, an agreement was entered!
into between the Coca-Cola company
and the parent bottlers, whereby the
bottlerS agreed to pay $4,000 per
year towards methods and means for
protecting the Coca-Cola trademark
He said, however, that in one year
the legal expenses of the CocI-Cold
company amounted to $4,000.
Tie herring viii be resumed Nor
lay afternoon Ut 2:30 o'clock.