Arizona sun., 1950-02-17

O,OOO u1dL hCG0 INV ~
the present owners could onl!
to dispose of it's manufacture
it's Commission House.
In 1945, before the United States
District Court in Danville, Illinois,
the government brought criminal
action against A & P. Beyond
reasonable doubt, A & P was found
guilty of violating the Sherman
Antitrust Act and fined $175,O0O.
In the Court of Appeals the A & P
was found guilty on an even broad
er base. For example, I found that
A & P which not only sells gro
ceries, but also has some processing
plants and bakeries, and extensive
commission house business, was
found guilty of compelling manu-
facturers to sell the A & P at cheap
er prices than other grocers under
threat of putting up its own manu-
featuring plants to destroy existing
manufacturers business. So A & P
got rates and its competitors were
soaked enough to cover losses.
These manufacturers actually had
to pay billion-dollar A & P sub
stantial allowances and rebates not
available to other grocery stores.
A & P collected advertising al
lowances for which no advertising
service was even rendered. A & P
actually charged some manufac-
turers rental for floor and shelf
space in A & P stores which was
occupied by the goods which A & P
had brought from the manufac-
turerS.
A & P FORCES CONCESSIONS
These were no small concessions
A & P was extorting from its sup
pliers. Pineapple juice was bought
at Is to 20 cents below the prices
paid by other grocers. A single
small supplier was forced to pay
$4,000 over three years for what
ever advertising support A & P
chose to give his product-or for
none at all. One canning company
contributed $175,000 year for ad-
vertising allowances alone. A & P
received a rebate of $4,000 from
the Ralston- -Purina Company In
little over two years by threatening
to enter into the manufacturing of
bran and breakfast foods in COM
petition with Ralston. And there
were other types Of coercive actions
in which farmers were concerned.
AS Congressman Wright Patman
pointed out: Every grocery man
knows he cannot expect to sell all
that he buys. There will be losses
from shrinkage, pilferage, spoilage,
and other unavoidable causes. But
it was the policy of A & P that the
local A & P store managers return
$1.02 for every dollars worth OF
goods charged to them, always at
the retail price, otherwise the man.
ager might be looking for a new
Job. And, as a result, A & P ac-
tually showed a profit of $42,500,-
600 in IA years between 1927 and
1941 on stock gains. This meant
that in one way or another the
public had been taken for ride.
And often it was by policy OF
short-weighing the customer and OF
short-changing or padding the add
ing tape at the check-out counter.
On the surface he was buying
cheaply, but often he wasn't getting
his moneys worth. This came out
in the trials.
us. ACTS TO BREAK MONOPOLY
Judge Minton of the Appeals
Court said: "No court has yet said
tl.at the accumulation and use OF
great power is unlawful per Sc.
Bigness is no crime, although size
is itself an earmark of monopoly
power. For size carries with it an
opportunity to abuse" And then
the Judge pointed out how A & P
. had abused, threatened boycotts
and other types of action in viole-
ton of the Sherman Antitrust
Law. Actually there were pages
of these violations. And when
the suit in Danville was brought,
the Government already contem-
plated bringing civil action TO
achieve correction of the situation:
Now that civil suit has been flled
a. o,,+ IN +ha A e. p It cannot