Opinion ID: 1483125
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Heart of the Commission's Case.

Text: The heart of the Commission's case, upon which it must stand or fall, is embodied in finding 7, which we shall consider in some detail. As a preface to such consideration, it is material to have in mind certain important facts not in dispute: 1. The overwhelming testimony is that the buyers of cement will not pay more for one brand of cement than for another. It is an interchangeable product. The complaint so recognizes, and finding 9(a) states:    a difference in price as small as one cent per barrel may divert business from one seller to another. 2. There is no exchange of price information between the respondents either through the Institute or otherwise. Finding 9(e) states: Except to the extent that the dissemination of delivered prices during the NRA Code period and some seven months thereafter necessarily carried with it an exchange of base prices, and except for limited direct exchanges among certain respondents which the record does not show to have been made under the auspices of the Institute, there has been no systematic exchange among the corporate respondents of basing-point prices or changes in such prices. 3. Likewise, there is no proof or finding of any exchange of information or any agreement among respondents concerning the price f.o.b. mill. 4. Information concerning prices is obtained by respondents from their respective customers and salesmen. Finding 9(e) states: When a corporate respondent makes a change in its base price, written delivered-price quotations reflecting this change are usually sent to all customers. Through common customers and through salesmen in the field, information concerning this change reaches the other respondents selling cement in that area almost immediately. 5. There is no agreement either through the Institute or otherwise as to whether a respondent shall operate a base or non-base mill. Finding 7(b) states: The number and identity of base and non-base mills change from time to time. A base mill may, for reasons its management considers sufficient, become a non-base mill, and, similarly, a non-base mill may become a base mill. 6. Dealers in cement and purchasers thereof, including governmental agencies, are almost unanimous in their desire to purchase on a basis of cost at the point of destination. 7. There is no finding of an agreement among respondents of a refusal to sell at an f.o.b. plant price. It is also interesting and perhaps pertinent to note certain euphonical words employed by the Commission. It invariably employs the word match for meet. The importance which the Commission attaches to this matching of prices rather than the meeting of prices is illustrated by the fact that in its brief it uses the former phrase not fewer than thirty-seven times. The purpose of this is obvious in the light of the language of the Supreme Court in the old Cement case and that contained in Sec. 2(b) of the Clayton Act as amended. Another favorite word is shrink. It seldom speaks of absorbing freight in order to meet an equally low price of a competitor but invariably talks about shrinking the mill nets. It always speaks of a system or formula and never a method of pricing, and the prices at the point of destination are always described as identical rather than uniform. Finding 7(a) states: Substantially all sales of cement by the corporate respondents are made on the basis of a delivered price; that is, at a price determined by the location at which actual delivery of the cement is made to the purchaser. It is pertinent to note in connection with this statement that sales are thus made because the market for cement is invariably at the buyer's destination; that is, the dealers whom the Commission characterizes as the backbone of the business insist on knowing how much it will cost delivered. This is also true generally of all purchasers of cement, including governmental agencies. That it is sold on this basis as a result of the demand of the buyer was conceded by counsel for the Commission on oral argument. Finding 7(a) continues: In determining the delivered price which will be charged for cement at any given location, respondents use a multiple basing-point system. Like many of the findings, the term respondents is indefinite and uncertain. Evidently it does not include all the corporate respondents. In fact, most of the Pacific Coast respondents deny that they have ever used this system of pricing. As already shown, the Commission concedes that the system used by some of these Pacific Coast respondents is modified by an elaborate system of zone prices applicable in certain areas. Finding 7(a) continues: The formula used to make this system operative is that the delivered price at any location shall be the lowest combination of base price plus all-rail freight. Thus, if Mill A has a base price of $1.50 per barrel, its delivered price at each location where it sells cement will be $1.50 per barrel plus the all-rail freight from its mill to the point of delivery, except that when a sale is made for delivery at a location at which the combination of the base price plus all-rail freight from another mill is a lower figure, Mill A uses this lower combination so that its delivered price at such location will be the same as the delivered price of the other mill. At all locations where the base price of Mill A plus freight is the lowest combination, Mill A recovers $1.50 net at the mill, and at locations where the combination of base price plus freight of another mill is lower, Mill A shrinks its mill net sufficiently to equal that price. Under these conditions it is obvious that the highest mill net which can be recovered by Mill A is $1.50 per barrel, and on sales where it has been necessary to shrink its mill net in order to match the delivered price of another mill, its net recovery at the mill is less than $1.50. This is a highly significant statement. The complaint contains no definition of the formula or system under condemnation, and the finding just quoted contains the only authoritative definition found in the record. It will be noted that the formula thus stated ignores non-base mills with their resultant phantom freight and is confined solely to base mills. In other words, according to the formula stated, it is complete and operative without the collection of any phantom or fictitious freight. Finding 7(b) states: Approximately half of the mills operated by the corporate respondents have base prices and are known as base mills. The other mills which have no base prices are known as non-base mills. Neither in this finding nor in any other is it revealed which mills are base and which are non-base. Furthermore, it is asserted in a respondent's brief and not denied by the Commission that At the close of the taking of testimony in this case on November 29, 1940 there were 138 cement mills and 15 packing plants operating in the area east of the Pacific Coast. Of these, 96 were base mills, 15 were base packing plants and 16 were mills located within 50 miles of one or more of the base mills. This total of 112 mills and 15 packing plants, scattered in thirty six states, represents 86% of the total productive capacity in this area. Counsel for the Commission conceded in oral argument that all of the Pacific Coast mills were base mills. Finding 7(c) states: Having no base price, a non-base mill quotes and sells cement at delivered prices determined by the lowest combination of base price plus freight from base mills. The mill net of a non-base mill is therefore highest in its home location and is less at all other locations by the amount of the freight from its mill to the point of delivery to the purchaser. While this finding has to do with non-base mills and the resultant fictitious or phantom freight, it is not included as a part of the definition of the formula of system under attack. Finding 7(g) states: The following is a hypothetical illustration of the system of pricing described: Assume that the base price of Mill A, located at Town A, is $1.50 per barrel; that the base price of Mill C, located at Town G, is the same; that Mill B, located at Town D, is a non-base mill; and that the all-rail freight rates are as indicated. Then the delivered prices of cement in the several towns and the mill nets of the several mills would be as shown below: Town Town Town Town Town Town Town A B C D E F G Freight from Mill A ........... 0 $0.10 $0.20 $0.30 $0.40 $0.50 $0.60 Freight from Mill B ........... $0.30 $0.20 $0.10 0 $0.10 $0.20 $0.30 Freight from Mill C ........... $0.60 $0.50 $0.40 $0.30 $0.20 $0.10 0 Delivered price of Mill A ..... $1.50 $1.60 $1.70 $1.80 $1.70 $1.60 $1.50 Delivered price of Mill B ..... $1.50 $1.60 $1.70 $1.80 $1.70 $1.60 $1.50 Delivered price of Mill C ..... $1.50 $1.60 $1.70 $1.80 $1.70 $1.60 $1.50 Mill net of Mill A ............ $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.30 $1.10 $0.90 Mill net of Mill B ............ $1.20 $1.40 $1.60 $1.80 $1.60 $1.40 $1.20 Mill net of Mill C ............ $0.90 $1.10 $1.30 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 As shown, the Commission in its definition of the pricing formula did not include a non-base mill with its resultant phantom and fictitious freight, but in its hypothetical illustration it includes Mill B, a non-base mill. This leaves us in doubt as to whether the system charged and found to exist is complete by the use of base mills as described in the Commission's formula with the resultant absorption of freight when selling in the territory where a competitor has an advantage freightwise, or whether the system necessarily embodies the employment of non-base mills, with the collection of phantom or fictitious freight in territory contiguous to such mills. Finding 7(h) states: Excluding errors made in the application of this pricing formula, it is plain that it will inevitably result in identical delivered prices for cement at any given location by all sellers using it. It is equally plain that this formula, once put into operation, is self-perpetuating in the sense that renewed understandings or agreements are not needed to maintain identical delivered prices over an indefinite period of time. [Italics ours.] This formula was not evolved and put into operation at one stroke. It came into existence and its territorial application was extended from time to time as a result of understandings and agreements among cement manufacturers. While this finding states that the formula was a result of understandings and agreements among cement manufacturers, it does not state that there were any such understandings and agreements which support the conspiracy charged in the instant case, which had its inception in 1929. In fact, as the record clearly discloses and as the Commission concedes, any understandings or agreements had long been in existence prior to the instant conspiracy and as the finding states, renewed understandings or agreements are not needed. The formula, once put in operation, is self-perpetuating. The hypothetical illustration in connection with the awesome table shown in 7(g) becomes simple when properly understood. For the purpose of reducing it to a simple and easily understood form we insert at this point a crude illustration of our own which illuminates the Commission's illustration: Mill A  Base pr. $1.50 Town A Frt. from A to B 10¢ Del. pr. at B $1.60 Town B Frt. from A to C 20¢ Del. pr. at C $1.70 Town C Frt. from A to D 30¢ Del. pr. at D $1.80 Mill B  Non-base Town D Frt. from G to D 30¢ Del. pr. at D $1.80 Town E Frt. from G to E 20¢ Del. pr. at E $1.70 Town F Frt. from G to F 10¢ Del. pr. at F $1.60 Mill C  Base pr. $1.50 Town G We shall first consider the position of Mill A located at Town A and Mill C located at Town G, both of which are base mills with a base price of $1.50. According to the findings, there is no agreement between Mills A and C as to their base price. Each is free to fix such price as it may see fit. Towns B, C, D, E and F are located between Towns A and G and we assume are equidistant apart. The freight from Town A to Town B is 10¢, to Town C 20¢, to Town D 30¢, to Town E 40¢, to Town F 50¢, and to Town G 60¢. Conversely, the freight rate from Town G to Town F is 10¢, to Town E 20¢, to Town D 30¢, to Town C 40¢, to Town B 50¢, and to Town A 60¢. Town D is midway between Towns A and G, so A has an advantage freightwise from its mill to all towns between Town A and Town D, and C likewise has a freight advantage from its mill to all towns between Town G and Town D. Both Mill A and Mill C desire to sell cement on a delivered price basis; in fact, they are virtually compelled to do this because of the demands of their customers. Mill A when selling at Towns B, C and D adds the actual freight to obtain the delivered price, and Mill C does the same when selling at Towns F, E and D. Both Mill A and Mill C are on an equal footing freightwise when they sell at Town D because D is midway between the two mills. Each of them is compelled to sell at the same price at Town D or at any other town, inasmuch as a difference of 1¢ would divert the business from one to the other. In this connection, it is pertinent to keep in mind that no price information has been exchanged between Mill A and Mill C (finding 9(e)). Furthermore, it is not claimed that the Institute has received from or transmitted to either Mill A or Mill C any price information. The information which each has as to the price the other is quoting at Town D or any other town is obtained from their salesmen in the field and almost immediately relayed to the two mills respectively. (Finding 9(e)). We suppose the Commission would not complain of their selling activities up to this point. However, Mill A is at a freight disadvantage at Towns E, F and G, just as Mill C is at a freight disadvantage at Towns C, B and A. When Mill A undertakes to sell at Towns E, F and G, it finds that Mill C has a freight advantage at these towns of 10¢, 20¢ and 30¢ respectively. Conversely, when Mill C undertakes to sell at Towns A, B and C, it finds that Mill A has a similar advantage. Thus these two competing mills are faced with a simple business proposition which can be solved in one of two ways, as their individual judgment may dictate. Each can confine its sales to the territory in which it has an advantage or can extend its business into the territory of the other. If they follow the former course, as the Commission would require them to do by its order, each will have a monopoly in its own territory and competition will be at an end. On the other hand, if the other course is pursued and they go into the territory where they are at a disadvantage freightwise, they necessarily must meet the price which they find there in order to sell. To enable them to do this, they absorb an amount of freight necessary to enable them to meet the price which they find. The same necessity which impels them to do this requires a reduction in their mill net in an amount equivalent to the freight which has been absorbed. Under the decision of the Supreme Court in the old Cement case (see also Maple Flooring Mfrs. Ass'n v. United States, 268 U.S. 563, 45 S.Ct. 578, 69 L.Ed. 1093), this pricing method employed by Mills A and C is not in restraint of competition, even though it results in uniformity of price at each destination. Neither, according to this decision, is the fact that they use this pricing method concurrently any evidence that they are engaged in a conspiracy. Notwithstanding this plain decision of the Supreme Court, the Commission now holds that the activities of Mills A and C constitute a restraint on competition and are unlawful. Furthermore, the Commission contends that their concurrent use of this pricing method is in and of itself evidence that they are engaged in a conspiracy. The Commission by its order proposes to free commerce from this restraint by erecting a barrier midway between Mills A and C and requiring that they each sell only in their own freight advantage territory. We shall hereafter discuss the uniformity of prices resulting from such a method of pricing, but at this point it is sufficient to observe that in our judgment the fact that Mills A and C sell at the same delivered price at all destinations is due to the fact that buyers of cement will not pay more for the cement produced by Mill A than that produced by Mill C, or vice versa. It would be interesting to know what the Commission's position would be if Mill A and Mill C had determined to sell only in the territory where each had an advantage freightwise. According to the Commission's theory, this uniformity of action would create an inference that they were acting in concert or by agreement. This inference having been made, we assume the Commission would have no difficulty in finding that A and C were in a combination to restrain competition. The fact is that the restraint which the Commission professes to discern, effected by freight absorption, is insignificant as compared with that which would result if each sold only in its own backyard, as the Commission would have them do. Now we bring Mill B, a non-base mill located at Town D, into the picture. However, this is not a part of the system according to the Commission's formula definition, as heretofore shown. Being located midway between Town A where Mill A is located and Town G where Mill C is located, it employs as a base either that of Mill A or Mill C. Evidently it collects phantom or fictitious freight on its sales at Town D and all other towns located nearer to Town D than to Towns A and G. Undoubtedly this constitutes a discrimination against its customers in those towns and is a violation of Sec. 2(a) of the Clayton Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Corn Products Company v. Federal Trade Commission, 324 U.S. 726, 65 S.Ct. 961, 89 L.Ed. 1320, and Federal Trade Commission v. Staley, 324 U.S. 746, 65 S.Ct. 971, 89 L.Ed. 1338, and the Commission could proceed against Mill B and all others engaging in a similar practice. The most illogical argument of all is that of the Commission that the concurrent use of this pricing method is proof of the conspiracy charged, this notwithstanding the fact that this method has long been in operation in the industry and that it was not initiated by the present respondents. As heretofore shown, the Commission found that the system is self-perpetuating and that renewed understandings or agreements are not needed. It seems obvious there was no reason why respondents should enter any agreement or understanding either at the time of the commencement of the conspiracy alleged or at any subsequent time. Continuing with this hypothetical situation, how can there be the slightest inference that Mills A and C had an agreement to use the method depicted? How could Mill A, if it desired to do so, prevent Mill C from coming over and selling in the territory in which the former had a freightwise advantage? And conversely, how could Mill C prevent Mill A from doing likewise in the territory where C had a similar advantage? Moreover, how could either Mill A or Mill C prevent the other from absorbing freight in order to meet the price of the other? And how could either prevent the other from reducing its mill net in so doing? Neither does the fact that Mill B in the exercise of its own judgment saw fit to establish a non-base mill at Town D create the slightest inference of an agreement or concerted action. It must be remembered that according to the Commission's finding it was discretionary with Mills A, B and C as to whether they should be base or non-base mills. As the finding states, each may do so for reasons its management considers sufficient. (Finding 7(b).) What could possibly be the motive for an agreement between these three mills that Mill B should sell cement on the base established by Mills A and C? Again we ask, how could Mills A and C if they so desired prevent Mill B from establishing itself as a non-base mill, and how could they prevent it, if they so desired, from selling on any base which its management determined? To argue that the selling system used by these three mills is evidence of a conspiracy may find support in the imagination of the fertile mind of some economic expert, but based upon common sense and the realities of the situation it is wholly without merit. If anything, finding 7, which we have labeled the heart of the Commission's case, in connection with the hypothetical illustration dispels any inference of conspiracy. We now use another illustration taken from a respondent's brief, based upon a situation actually disclosed in the record. Scores of other like situations could be enumerated. In fact, it is typical of base mills. In Indiana, respondent Lone Star has a base mill located at Limedale, forty-one miles southwest of Indianapolis, and respondent Lehigh has a mill located at Mitchell, ninety-eight miles south of Indianapolis, also a base mill. The largest market for cement in that territory is Indianapolis. Both mills set for themselves, as they have a right to do, a figure of $1.60 per barrel, which they seek to net at their mills. As already noted, there is no charge or finding of any agreement with reference to mill prices. The freight rate from Limedale to Indianapolis is 29¢, and from Mitchell it is 36¢, so Limedale has a 7¢ advantage. Limedale adds its actual freight to Indianapolis as well as to other points. Thus its delivered price at Indianapolis is $1.89. There is no varying mill net, no freight absorption, no phantom freight and no cross-hauling, insofar as Limedale is concerned. The Mitchell mill, however, a competitor of Limedale, is also desirous of participating in the big Indianapolis market. In attempting to realize that desire, it quickly learns three things  (1) that Limedale is quoting a price in Indianapolis of $1.89, (2) that its own salesmen cannot sell cement for even a penny more than that, and (3) that the freight rate from Mitchell to Indianapolis is 36¢ (7¢ more than the rate of its Limedale competitor). Mitchell, confronted with this problem, can do one of two things  stay out of the Indianapolis market or go into the market and meet the delivered price of Limedale, which is $1.89. Of course, Mitchell might quote a penny or more less than Limedale but as soon as Limedale learned of this from its salesmen in Indianapolis, which might be the next day but more likely the next hour, it would be compelled to lower its price so as to meet that of Mitchell. The delivered price of these two mills at Indianapolis would still be the same as it was before, except on a lower level. Mitchell, upon learning of Limedale's delivered price in Indianapolis, might ignore the so-called basing point system by merely meeting Limedale's price. Exactly the same result, however, would follow because by any pricing method employed Mitchell would still be confronted by the hard fact that its freight rate to Indianapolis is 7¢ more than that of Limedale. So by whatever method Mitchell uses to meet Limedale's price in Indianapolis it would have as its mill net $1.53. Of course, Mitchell absorbs 7¢ per barrel, but why does it do it? The Commission says to restrain competition, when the plain fact is that it couldn't sell in the Indianapolis market without doing so. If Mitchell was the only plant located near Indianapolis, it could and no doubt would include in its delivered price the actual freight. According to the Commission's contention, Mitchell should stay out of the Indianapolis market; in fact, under the Commission's order it would be required to do so. The Commission makes much of the fact that Mitchell realizes a mill net of $1.60 in its home territory but is willing to accept a mill net of $1.53 on its Indianapolis sales. This, however, is the inevitable result of the desire of Mitchell to sell in the Indianapolis market. If it is to be enjoined from absorbing freight in order to reach this market, it is reasonable to think that its unit cost of production at its factory in Mitchell would be considerably increased and the price of cement to its home customers increased accordingly. In fact, Mitchell without the Indianapolis market might not be able to operate. Thus the Commission's solicitude for Mitchell's home customers would in all probability result to their detriment. Limedale and Mitchell, like all other base mills which ship by rail, do not collect any phantom freight. Limedale, like Mitchell and like all others who sell on their own base and ship by rail, absorbs freight when going into a freight disadvantage territory in order to meet the price which it there finds. As we asked in the hypothetical situation, we again ask, how can this situation as it relates to Limedale and Mitchell, and others who occupy a like situation, be any evidence of conspiracy? How can either Limedale or Mitchell, if either so desires, prevent the other from pricing as it does? And suppose they could  would that be an aid to or a restraint on competition? We think the question answers itself. That the heart of the Commission's case is contained in finding 7 as to the charge in count 2 as well as count 1 of the complaint is further exemplified by finding 23 (a) which states: The multiple basing-point delivered-price system used by the corporate respondents in the sale of cement is a discriminatory method of pricing.    The hypothetical illustration set out in subsection (g) of Paragraph Seven indicates the types of discriminatory price differences which are systematically exacted in order that each respondent may match the delivered price of other respondents at any given point. The finding repeats the hypothetical illustration, heretofore shown, as to the situation existing between base Mills A and C and non-base Mill B. The finding continues: Each mill shrinks its mill net by the amount necessary for it to match the delivered prices established pursuant to the aforesaid pricing system. This is high sounding language, perhaps consistent with economic thinking, but in reality it means nothing more or less than that each mill reduces its mill net by the amount necessary to enable it to meet the delivered price of a competitor in territory where it is at a disadvantage freightwise. To state the situation realistically is of no benefit to the Commission's cause; in fact, the situation so stated brings the Commission in conflict not only with what was said and held in the old Cement case but with Sec. 2(b) of the Clayton Act which provides, that nothing herein contained shall prevent a seller rebutting the prima facie case thus made by showing that his lower price    was made in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor   . Of course, this presents the question as to whether freight has been absorbed in good faith. In the Commission's hypothetical illustration we cannot see the slightest reason for imputing to either base Mill A or C any other than good faith in absorbing such freight as was necessary in order to meet the price of the other. It was imperative that each of these mills do so if they were to sell in the territory where the other had a freight advantage and, as already pointed out, neither of them could have prevented the other from so doing. The Commission, however, by its order would enjoin Mills A and C from so doing which would, in our judgment, eliminate or at any rate nullify the proviso contained in Sec. 2(b) of the Clayton Act. The Commission evidently recognizes its precarious situation in this respect, which accounts no doubt for the fact that it continuously uses the word match rather than meet. The Commission in its brief, without making any distinction between base and non-base mills and therefore no distinction between freight absorption and phantom or fictitious freight, makes the bold statement that the illegality of variation in mill net prices has been laid to rest by the decisions of the Supreme Court in the Corn Products and Staley cases. We do not so understand. We do understand from those decisions that when a product is sold from a base other than the point of actual shipment and phantom freight thereby collected, a discrimination in violation of the Clayton Act results. Certainly the court in those decisions did not hold that freight absorption was discriminatory; in fact, that question was expressly left open. In the Corn Products case, the court stated (324 U.S. at page 735, 65 S.Ct. at page 966, 89 L.Ed. 1320): We have no occasion to decide whether a basing point system such as that in the Cement case is permissible under the Clayton Act, in view of the provisions of § 2(b), permitting reductions in price in order to meet a competitor's equally low price. The decision in the Corn Products case, in sustaining the Commission's theory of discrimination, was predicated upon the fact that the company charged and collected freight from Chicago irrespective of whether its product was shipped from there or from its other plant located at Kansas City. We have every reason to think that if freight had been charged only from the point of shipment the decision would have been different. This is borne out by a statement in the Staley case, which was decided on the same date as the Corn Products case, wherein the court stated (324 U.S. at page 750, 65 S.Ct. at page 973, 89 L.Ed. 1338): As we hold in the Corn Products Refining Company case with respect to a like system, price discriminations are necessarily involved where the price basing point is distant from the point of production. This is because, as in respondents' case, the delivered prices upon shipments from Decatur usually include an item of unearned or phantom freight or require the absorption of freight with the consequent variations in the seller's net factory prices. The court holds this to be a discrimination prohibited by Sec. 2 (a). The real question for decision, however, was whether Staley was entitled to the benefit of Sec. 2(b) by reason of the contention that they adopted the pricing system of Corn Products in order to meet competition. The court stated (324 U.S. at page 753, 65 S.Ct. at page 974, 89 L.Ed. 1338): In the Corn Products Refining Company case we hold that this price system of respondents' competitor in part involves unlawful price discriminations, to the extent that freight differential enter into the computation of price, as a result of the selection as a basing point of a place distant from the point of production and shipment. This seems to make it perfectly clear that the court was solely concerned with a system of pricing predicated upon a basing point other than that of actual shipment. Staley had no basing point of its own but utilized the discriminatory system of Corn Products which the court held refuted its claim that it did so in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor. The court further made this pertinent observation (324 U.S. at page 757, 65 S.Ct. at page 976, 89 L.Ed. 1338): We cannot say that a seller acts in good faith when it chooses to adopt such a clearly discriminatory pricing system, at least where it has never attempted to set up a non-discriminatory system, giving to purchasers, who have the natural advantage of proximity to its plant, the price advantages which they are entitled to expect over purchasers at a distance. Staley, like Mill B in the Commission's hypothetical illustration, sold its product from a competitor's base rather than a base of its own, and thereby deprived its home customers of the price advantages which they were entitled to over purchasers at a distance. Suppose Staley had sold from its own base, as do Mills A and C in the Commission's hypothetical illustration, adding actual freight to points in the territory where it had a freight advantage and absorbing freight necessary to meet competition in other territories. The court in its opinion said nothing which even indicates that such action on the part of Staley would have been discriminatory. In fact, the court disclaimed any such purpose when it stated (324 U.S. at page 757, 65 S.Ct. at page 976, 89 L.Ed. 1338): But it does not follow that respondents may never absorb freight when their factory price plus actual freight is higher than their competitors' price, or that sellers, by so doing, may not maintain a uniform delivered price at all points of delivery, for in that event there is no discrimination in price. Thus the court recognized that a seller may absorb freight when done in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor, even though a uniform delivered price at all points of delivery might result. That the remedy invoked against Staley may be appropriate against Mill B in the Commission's hypothetical illustration furnishes no basis for the application of the same remedy against Mills A and C, or against any of respondents who occupy a like status.