The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1921-05-16
SOVIET PLAN FAILS HERE.


Another ambitious attempt at CO.
operative management of a business
of which the co-operators knew moth
ing, appears to have come to grief.
The late cooperative manufacturing
scheme of the United Brotherhood OF
Maintenance of Way Employees and
Railway Shop Laborers, launched IN
Toledo several months ago. is a fall
ure according TO the Toledo Times ana
the union now faces a suit for dam
ages in the sum of $75O.O0O, brought
in United States court.
The coop factory was to manufac-
ture various articles for the use of the
confederated unions, who would be
able to purchase at cost.
The Bacon Brothers Co. bring the
suit against the railway unions. They
are manufacturers of gloves and nit
tens. They originally owned the fac
tory which they now recite was pur-
chased by the unions mentioned, but
that the unions failed to carry out
their end of the agreement.
All of the grand officers of the
boards are made defendants, individ-
ually and as officers.
The bill of complaint estimates that
there are 5000 members who would
be liable to become defendants under
their constitution, but merely names
! the officers.
The bill of complaint charges that
one of the agreements entered into by
members of the executive board of the
brotherhood with the Bacon Brothers
! Co., was practically abrogated by
these same individuals when they sent
out a circular over the United States
and Canada denouncing the whole
plan.
The brotherhood it is reported pur-
chased the Bacon Brothers plant and
/ hired A. E. Bacon, secretary-treasurer
of the company, to manage the bust
ness. The plan was to sell gloves,
overal1s, mittens, hose, shoes, blankets
and other wearing apparel to the
union members at cost.
| The unions were to help thru their
publication in selling and distributing
the goods. They bought the plant and
were to furnish the money and labor
for operation. Part of the product
was to be taken by the Bacon Brothers
Co, in event the unions failed to dis
pose of their share.
It is charged that internal dissen-
sion arose in the brotherhood and
some members deliberately set out 10
ruin the cooperative plan and destroy
the FIRMS business.
| The bill also complains that the az
sets of the brotherhood are being
wrongfulIy dissipated by certain of its
officers.
The real estate, buildings and equip
ment of the company was bought for
a consideration of s90,214.62, only
about a third of which was paid down.
Materials in the raw state valued at
| s105,297.75 and finished goods valued
at $21S,054.S9 were also bought.
The agreement made by the union
was to manufacture total production
of approximately 100000 a year for
five years. The union was to take
half and sell it for cost plus five per
cent.
Bacon Brothers were to receive the
other half at cost plus five per cent.
The union agreed to furnish the cap
itaI and funds to operate the plant.
The cooperative plan was started
January 8, 1920. and became unwork-
able June so the same year.
| Agreements were entered into by
Bacon Brothers to furnish shoes and
other commodities at cost.
The final result was that the whole
plan fell thru and the debts of the
brotherhood to the Toledo concern are
! S5S4.601.74 on the plant and its oper-
alton. Untitled contracts for other
goods and damages to the business
bring the total asked for in the suit uH
to $750,ooo.