Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1955-04-07
Jury Returns
In Liquor Probe
Boycott of Dispensory
System in County
Set OFF Investigation

indictments.
The complaints arose out Of
a boycott of the Montgomery
County liquor dispensary system
by seven major distillers.
Defendants Listed
Trade associations named in
the indictment were the Mary
land State Licensed Beverage
Association. Inc, the Maryland
Package Liquor Store Associa-
ton, Inc, and the Maryland In
stitute of Wine and Spirit Dis
tributors. Inc.
Distillers indicted were Ma
tional Distillers Products Corp.
Joseph E. Seagram and Sons.
Inc, Distillers Distributing Corp,
Hiram Walker and Sons. Inc,
Hiram Walker, Inc, Gooderham
and Worts, Ltd. James Barclay
and Co., Ltd. Schenley Indus
tries. Inc. Schenley Distributors.
Inc, Melrose Distillers. Inc,
Dant Distilling and Distributing
Co., CVS Corp. McKesson and
Robbins. Inc. and Crosse and
Blackwell Co.
Wholesalers were Mccarthy
Hicks, Inc, Churchill, Ltd, the
Kronheim Co.. Inc, RWL Wine
and Liquor Co., Inc. Reliable
Liquors, Inc, Gillett- Wright.
Inc, and the Madeira Bonded
Wine and Liquor Co.
Most Of the individuals in
dicted were officials Of the vari-
Gus corporate defendants.
Charge Conspiracy
The indictment charged that
beginning about January. 1850.
these defendants entered into q
conspiracy ito raise, fix, main
tain. and stabilize the wholesale
and retail prices Of alcoholic
beverages shipped into Maryland
In restraint of interstate trade
and commerce"
Attorney General Brownell
said in Washington that the Of
lenses charged were mot to pro-
mote the purpose Of either the
Maryland fair trade act or the
(FederaD Miller Tydings and
Mcclure Acts, but was a COM
bination and conspiracy" to
raise and Ak liquor prices.
Milton s. Kronheim. president
Of the Kronheim Co.. Inc, Of
Baltimore, who was named along
with Bernard Cohen, vice presi-
dent, said last night he had seen
only the announcement Of the
Attorney General concerning the
indictment.
Denies Allegations
Mr.. Kronheim, who also has a
liquor business here. declared:
II deny the allegations and win
completely refute the charge
when given the opportunity
to do so.
II regret that the Department
Of Justice elected to resort to d
criminal prosecution with regard
to a disagreement concerning a
business practice, as to whether
Montgomery County should be
permitted to purchase alcoholic
beverages directly from distill-
cries or, like all other, be re-
quired to make their purchases
through the local distributors.
"They might well have elected
to end the practice, If they be-
lived it to be in violation Of the
antitrust laws, by making an
application to the court for an
injunction in a civil proceeding. /"
Federal Judge Roszell C.
Thomson scheduled an arraign-
ment under the indictments for
May s after hearing q plea from
Government attorneys for early
action.
The Judge also signed an order
calling for impounding q huge
volume Of corporate records of
the liquor industry and its
branches. The records already
had been subpoenaed by the
grand jury.
Buys From Distilleries
Montgomery County for sew
eral years has had the privilege
Of buying directly from the dis
tilleries as a member Of an as
ISOLATION that includes the coun-
ty and II States which have
monopoly systems.
In the summer Of 1854 the
first distiller informed the coun-
ty it would have to buy through
It's Maryland distributor. During
the next eight months at least
seven other distilleries refused
to Ali Montgomery County or
ders directly.
The boycott would have forced
Montgomery County dispensary
prices up. County officials COM
planned that this would have
forced the county out Of COM
petition with District retailers.
The county's delegation at
the General Assembly sought to
put through a bill that would
have barred distillers from SELL
ing in Maryland II they refused
to sell directly to q county dis
penSary system.
The bill was killed on the Sen
ate floor.