The potters herald. [volume] (East Liverpool, Ohio) 1899-1982, 1949-10-06
Evidence Shows A&P Advertisements
Filled With Misstatements of Facts
By NATHAN ROBERTSON


Washington (LPA)-Housewives
would do we'll to think twice, or
even three times, before they ac-
cept the claim of the A&P stores
that the governments antitrust
suit against the big food chain
would mean higher food prices.
The stores already have been con-
victed of illegal practices which
force millions Of consumers to pay
higher prices than necessary.
There is no question but what
the APP stores often offer prices
lower than you can find in other
stores. But previous court decis-
ions show they frequently do so at
the expense of consumers in their
own stores elsewhere and in rival
stores. In other words, there is no
assurance you will always get the
lowest prices in APP stores, or
that if they were put out Of busl-
ness (Which the government is not
trying to do) you would have to
pay higher prices. But if the gov
ernment is successful in its suit
you should get lower prices in
other stores.
The APP is trying to bury these
previous court decisions under mil
lions of dollars worth of advertis-
ing. 1t took out full page adyer-
tisements in 2000 newspapers last
week picturing the government as
trying to put it out of business and
force higher food prices. 1t claimed
the suit was brought by bunch
of crackpot antitrust lawyers in
Washington" who believe "any big
business must be destroyed simply
because it is big"
These advertisements were filled
with direct misstatements and
omissions of fact. They did not
mention, for instance, nor did the
news stories which somehow got
into many Of the newspapers at
the same time, that the A&P had
already been convicted on the
same charges the government Isl
now bringing against it. The
charges, therefore, are not the
charges of a bunch of wild-eyed
lawyers in Washington, but the
findings of sober federal judges,
including a unanimous three Judge
Federal Court of Appeals.
Nor is the government trying to
put the A&P out of business as
the advertisement said in big black
headlines. The government is try
ing to break the 6000-store chain
up into seven smaller, but still big,
chains. 1t also is asking the courts
to separate the retail chains from
the manufacturing and wholesale
operations which have resulted in
illegal operations.
The previous court decisions
made clear that the government
was not attacking A&P for its big
ness, but because it was using its
bigness for illegal operations that
were costing consumers a great
deal of money. 1t was doing this in
two ways:
First, the A&P was convicted of
using its power, as the biggest |
buyer of food in the country, tC
force a two-price system on pro-
ducers and wholesalers VIII i h |
benefited the A&P with low prices
but forced other stores, and there
fore other consumers, to pay more |
The APP was entitled to savings |
resulting from quantity purchases |
but not to additional price cuts il
used its power to get.
Second, the A&P was convicted |
of selling below cost in some of it,
stores and driving competitors out |
of business, at the expense of its
customers in other stores, who |
had to pay higher prices
to maintain the A&P profit level.
The implications Of this are that
once the APP has killed off COM
petition you have no assurance of
continued low prices.
This is the system monopolists
have traditionally followed since
the days of John ID. Rockefeller
and the Standard Oil Trust. The
evidence showed, for instance, that
the A&P was purposely losing |
money at one time in Baltimore
Washington and Richmond, but
partially recouping in Scranton,
where a price fixing system has
been worked out with competitors.
As a special campaign was opened
against a new competitor in Rich '