Toledo union journal. [volume] (Toledo, Ohio) 1942-current, 1949-10-07
Evidence Shows
Measurements Fill
ASP Advertisements
BY Nathan Robertson

suit against the big food chain would mean
higher food prices. The stores already have
been convicted 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 deci-
sions show they frequently do so at the ex-
pense of consumers in their own stores else
where and in rival stores. In other words,
there is no assurance you will always get the
lowest prices in Arp stores or that If they
were put out of business (Which the govern
ment is not trying to do you would have to
pay higher prices. But if the government is
successful in its suit you should get lower
prices in other stores.
The Arp is trying to bury these previous
court decisions under millions of dollars worth
of advertising It took out full page advertise
ments in 1000 newspapers last week pictur
ing 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 amy big business must be destroy
ed simply because it is big"
These advertisements we're filled with di-
rect msstatements 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 char
ges the government is now bringing against
it. The charges therefore are not the charges
of bunch of wild-eyed lawyers in Washing
fnl
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 operatioss.
The previous court decisions made clear
that the government was not attacking A&5P
for its biEness, but because it was using its
bieness for Illegal operations that were cost
ing consumers ag reat deal of money II was
doing this in two ways
First the Arp was convicted of using its
power, as the biggest buyer of food in the
country, to force two price system on produ-
GERS and wholesalers which benefited the A8SP
with low prices, but forced other stores, and
therefore other consumers, to pay more. The
A&P was entitled to savings resulting from
quantity purchases, but not to additional price
cuts 1t used its power to get,
Second, the A&P was convicted of selling
below cost in some of its stores and driving
competitors out of business, at the expense of
its consumers In other stores, who therefore
had TO pay higher prices to maintain the A3lP
profit level The implications of this are that
once the Arp has killed off competition you
have no assurance of continued low prices.
This is the system monopolsts have tradi-
tionally followed since the days Of John d.
Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Trust The
evidence showed, for instance that the A6P
was purposely losing money at one time in
Baltimore, Washington and Richmond, but
partially recouping in Scranton, where price
fixing system had been worked out with COM
petitors. AS a special campaign was opened
against a new competitor in Richmond, Divi-
sion Headquarters said "the hotter we can
make our program, the quicker this outfit will
realize that they have no place In the super
market in Richmond"
The Court Of Appeals called this "lethal
competition" II warned that If carried far
enough, such policies could drive every indie
pendent retailer and even smaller competing
chains out of business, No competitor can
match the A&Ps present resources in manu-
featuring wholesaling and retailing. Profits
from manufacturing and Wholesaling can be
used to kill off competition in the retail field.
But where would consumers be- once the
Arp had killed off all competitors? 1t is one
thing TO take business away from competitors
through low prices resulting from efficiency.
as the APP claimed to have done in its ad-
vertisements But the court records are filled
with evidence of Arp stores selling at loss
for years on end to increase volume" which
means taking the business away from com
petitors unfairly, at the expense of consumers
elsewhere. If APPS efficiency resulted in such
low prices, why did it have to sell at loss to
gain new business7
Housewives and their husbands would do
well 10 consider another angle in this APP
case They not only consumers they often
are fathers and mothers DO they want their
children to have chance TO work only az hir-
ed clerks or hired store managers or do they
want their children 10 have chance to own
their own busnessses7
In the last case the A&P cot fine of only
sl75,000 for years of illegal operations That
is drop in the bucket to such large busi-
ness, only fraction of what il paid last week
for single advertising splurge II has persist
ed In its monopolistic practices In the face Of
previous court suits and prohibitory legiSls-
ton That is why the government is now try
ms 10 break IL up into smalled units - not to
destroy its efficiency, but to destroy its power
10 harm competitors and consumers