Decatur Daily Democrat, Volume 48, Number 111, Decatur, Adams County, 11 May 1950 — Page 7

jrmmgMT. Wat », itu

• - , . x ’ This Time The Anti-Trust Lawyers ' ~” ’ '' J •’ 1 s "■" ' ''- -- ‘ " •“ " ~——-* — — ■-— -a- ~ r —. ,■. « » J _ ' ■”• f—.— — — T l|l^'^>^iawal toto* lt **«hfa«gnßMßftaiMiaiSgieM»MwhmkiiMkan&Lrii^ w^^_m^— ■ . -.-- ■,--—--r- ; .. - ~ -.. Won A Case Against A&P As almost everyone now knows, the anti-trust lawyers in Washington have brought a civil wit to destroy AAP. They ask the courts to order the dissolution of thn company. They say that this suit b based on the fact that they won a wit against us al Danville, Illinois, in 1946. They did. In that case, Federal Judge Walter C. Lindley made a decision against A&P. Immediately thereafter, in a letter explaining his decision, Judge Lindley wrote: *7 have not the A&P system. Ihave not made a finding - - .'./' r " Ae the basis for a wit of dissolution” So, now we have the antitrust lawyers saying that their suit to dissolve A&P is based on Judge Lindley’s decision; while Judge Lindley himself says hb decision could not be the basis for a suit of dissolution. In previous ads we told you about the cases against A&P which the anti-trust lawyers lost We promised to tell you about thb case they won. Here b the story of the Danville case. What Judge Lindley Objected To What We Did To Correct This At Danville, the anti-trust lawyers made all of the charges which they are again majkiiig ’ In the "light of the decision, we immediately reyiawing our activities to ba MM against A&P today. They were substantially the same charges they had made and dropped that there could never again be any criticism of our operations. ’ at Dallas. Texas, after four federal judges had objected to some of them as "inflammatory.” r»mmissinn Company abandoned tbe dual rale to whidl Judge Lfedfey In his decision. Judge Undlev was critical of some of our activities. He throw some of objected and which be said was thebasio of hie dedeion against tbe charges out of court. He did not maha any decision on others. - Judge Lindley said: and seller of fresh fruits and vegetables. * portion of l30fiO0fl(K) A , Commimion Company now only buy. for A&P. In othw words, we rtoppod **No place in the world I tahe it are people 00 toell feJ a» in the United States. No- We made additional changes in other methods of operation which Judge Lindley where elee, I euppoee, do food distributor* accomplieh efficient distribution eit so had questioned at Danville, even though he did not base his decision on them. low a margin of profit. In contrast, we are toU in other nations the problem is not w ... one of an adequate diet but one of no diet pt ail ” We did even more than this! But Judge Lindley did find us in violation of the Sherman Act He based hu ruling on the We went down to Washington ami rnUd the anti-trust iawysrs what eke they thought dual role played by our fresh fruit and vegetable buying subsidiary, the Atlantic Commission we should do to conform to their new interpretation of tbe vague anti-trust laws. Company, whereby that organization acted both as buying agent for A4P and aa selling rA< only antlMr M „ got was that we should break up this company! ~ agent for growers. . .. Despite their claim that they were not opposed to A&P's size, they insisted that Judge Lindley said: . \ u>a destroy this sise. “If I assume for the purpose of disposition of this case that in general the policy of AAP was to operate within the law and attribute to defendants a desire to * \ Despite their claim that they were not opposed to our manufacturing operations. comply with the law, there still remains the conscious, knowing adoption by all they insisted that we get rid of oar factories tohich produce many of the fine foods defendants of a plan of action by the Atlantic Commission Company affecting you buy at A&P. every department of A&P and every retail store which cannot be squared with they oppo>ed t<j j qw the intent and purpose of the act. we destroy many of the efficiencies that make these low prices possible. In his letter explaining the decision. Judge Lindley wrote: “/ have condemned their proc- ■■ «... . .a* tices through the Atlantic Commission Company” In other word *’ the T «P«* »>* dissolution of A&P. Judge Lindley imposed fines totaling $175,000. When his decision was upheld by the Circuit We were still trying to hnd out from the anti-trust lawyers what else they thought Court of Appeals in Chicago, we paid the fines. This ended the case—but we did not stop there. we should do to conform to the law when they filed the currant suit to destroy A&P. Why, Then, Do They Want To Put A&P Out Os Business ? Bver since ibis suit was filed, the anti-trust lawyers have been making damaging statements They say they are seeking to “enjoin” A&P from engaging in certain “alleged" practices, t that emdd eerioualy hurt on *r - -if they were believed by tlw public. T Actually, the whole purpose of this suit is not to "enjoin" us, but to put us out I —-t-T — -i—' • • ■' - _ K They my that wo were found guilty at Danville of al the charges they are making today. . They say that this suit for diaaohrtioe is based on the deefaioo handed down by Judge This ip not true. Judge Lindley did not ssntain all of the charges of the anti- lTi®sjr in Danville, tnut femvera Judge Lindley has said of his decisiont “/ have net made a finding which cotdd be the basis for a suit of dissolution.” They say this suit is designed to enforce the law. What, then, is the real reason why the aatMruat lawyers want to destroy tide comgw|F. tut A&P has clearly demonstrated Us sincere desire to abide by the spirit, as which for 90 years has pioneered the methods of diatrihutino wfijch have grysu the . . grail M tha fafltfdVWfc . ■JT'.'t. .. ■' -. -? wioa people more good food for their money? THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY

ffcCATtm MttT MMOOUV. MKAWBt WMAMA

PAGE SEVEN