Norwich bulletin., 1922-01-04
LAWFUL TRADE METHODS
 DEFINED BY SUPREME COURT

Washinetok,t Jan. 3s-Lawful trade methods were further defined today by the supreme court ip a decision hold ing the trade methods and policies of the Beech Nut Packing Company in ob tsining the cooperation of it's dstribu- tors and customers to be unfair meth ods of competition" within the meaning of the federal trade commission act.
 In upholdinE the right of the federal trade commission to order discontinu- ance of such methods the court divided five to four. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court, and Justices Holmes. McKenna, McReynolds and Brandeis dissented. The decision re- verses the lower courts.
 If the Beech Nut system of mer- chandising is against public policy be- cause of its dangerous tendency to hinder competition or to create monop- oly,'" the court maintained, it was within the power of the commission to make an order forbidding it's continua- tion"
 Three trade method cases previously decided by the supreme court which wera brought under the Sherman anti- trust law, and not under the federal trade commission act as was the Beech Nut case, settled. the court stated today, that in prosecutions under the Sherman act a trader is not guilty of violating its terms who simply refuses to sell to oth- CTS, and he may withhold his goods from those who will not sell them at the prices which he fixes for their resale" In the Beech Nut case the court stated that the facts found show that the Beech Nut system goes far beyond the simple refusal to sell goods to persons who will not sell at stated prices. which l in the Colgate case was held to be with | in the legal right of the producer" The Sherman act was not involved except as "a declaration of public policy to be con- sidered in determining what are fair methods of competition, which the fed- | eral trade commission is empowered to l condemn and suppress.
 | The methods and plan of the Beech Nut Company in it's trade policy were described at length by the court, which asserted that the concern refused to sell 1 it's products to practically all jobbers. 1 wholesalers and retailers who do not | sell at prices it suggests, or who resell 1 to other jobbers. wholesalers and re- talers who have failed to resell at pric- es suggested by it. Further, that it re- fused te sell to practically all main order | houses engaged in interstate commerce, because they frequently sell at cut pric- l es and had refused to sell to practically
 
 | sell It's products to mail order houses The court also said it had refused to sell | to practically all so-called price cutters and maintained large force of special 1 ty. salesmen or drummers who refused 1 to fill their orders through jobbers and | wholesalers who sell at prices less than suggested resell s'ricfs or tao sell | to others who do so.
 Reference was also made by the court to the various lists maintained by the company of dealers, with key numbers to enable it to identify the distribu | tors from whom obbers and retailer: purchase, enabling its representatives to identify price cutters. as well as thost from whom they obtained their supplies the company refusing to sell to the deal CTS from whom the retailers who GU prices obtained the supplies. Card rec ords. the court asserted, also were main tained with the names of thousands O
 jobbing, wholesale and retail distribu tors, using to indicate the various class
 es of trade the words undesirable pric
 cutters do not sell" or. ID. \. s.,
 the abbreviation for do not selr' o expressions of like chara acter.
 The majority suggested a form of or der which the federal trade comnissio
 should have used in forbidding the con
 tinuance by the company of it's practices