Indianapolis Times, Indianapolis, Marion County, 9 February 1950 — Page 11

SBERT

AN include

shortcake on ‘this weeknt the fresh

lly plentiful:

es will have ym the food ie beginning strawberries, hey are ex- . they don’t tag. gh have yw-cost ones ead lettuce, r and cab-

UITS ce still about the

‘e. High-priced.

expensive. he “demand: about the same

pd stil higher, SCATC r buy Shan leme

her, pply: price still in supply. uch larger. very little high.

FABLES

high but supply

nd “price, TE - no higher 19

ul. the same, is still nice,

derate price. ut to appear om

heap. good quale variety. is much 1d a new crop,

lity nice; price }

e there is a good price lower. yderate price.

price about the and a little

and low-priced, ry Club Party

Valentine's

t in the Hille

Mr. and Mrs, nd Mrs, H. J, of the event, will be an arty for the 8. R. N, Hiatt bridge. On » a Washingration in the

hse ssite

la! A

ctionl

————

RN NNER NN EN SNE NY pp ae

= “I have studied this case from- the very out

Today’s ad is the third in a series s telling about times the anti-trust lawyers made sérious and damaging charges against A&P that the courts decided were not true. ;

In the first ad in this series we told you about the time the anti-trust lawyers charged that A&P, and other good

Washington. These charges were false.

That was the time F ederal Judge T. Alan Golds-

of “not guilty”. It was the time he said to the anti-trust lawyers:

“If you were to show this record to any experienced trial lawyer in the world, he

dence at all.

“Honestly, 1 have never in my over forty’ years’ experience seen tried a case that vas as absolutely devoid of evidence as this. That is the honest truth. | have never seen one like it

such serious “allegations” against A&P which were false. In our second ad we told you about the time in

Wilson, North Carolina, they charged A&P’s fresh fruit and vegetable buying subsidiary, and

fix and depress prices paid farmers for potatoes in North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland.

Here again, as in the Washington bread case, the charges _ were false,

directed the jury to bring in a verdict of “not guilty”.

It was the time he said to the anti-trust lawyers:

borough instructed the jury to bring in a verdict

would tell you that there was not any evi-

other good American citizens, with conspiring to

American citizens, conspired to fix the price of bread in |

This was the time Federal Judge C. C Wyche “1

= eg Tl

But that was not he only time the anti-trust lawyers made yoo

Judge Atwell said | to the anti-trust t lawyerss

THE INDIANAPOLIS TIMES

Is it a crime to give people more good food for their money? ih a For 90 years A&P has devoted all its energies to this end.

For many months now the ‘anti-trust lawyers from Washington have been giving stories to the new Teun speeches and talking over the radio about this company.

r !

They have been making serious and damaging allegations about the methods that enable A&P to give te ous

tomers better food values.

- We have already told you about other times the anti-trust lawyers made charges against us that were proved

utterly false in court.

In the left-hand column on pn this page you can read what the federal judges had to say about those two cases.

Now we are going to tell you about the third 1 time a federal judge decided against the anti-trust lawyers,

The Dallas Anti “Trust Suit Eo +

In 1942 the anti-trust lawyers went out to Dallas, Texas, 1,400 miles from the homes of most of the defendants, and instigated criminal charges against A&P.

"About this case one thing was sure.

Their previous experience did not deter the anti-trust lawyers from making more inflammatory and damaging allegations, just as they

had done before.

making today.

Federal Judge W. H. Atwell ruled that the case should not even be tried. He said that the indictment contained inflammatory statements that he would not permit to be presented to a jury. =

“If thought I was presiding. over a court and that T might have to sentence some person because he was + a great big fellow, or because he was a Lilliputian, I would feel like resigning. God knows we don’t

“They made Practically the same allegations they a are.

Judge Atwell also said to the anti-trust lawyerss “If the indictment is not good then it is better to find out before an expensive trial than it is after an expensive trial. I do not think it is good, and think-

ing that, it is my duty to sustain the demurrers and motion to quash.”

14 short, Federal Judge Atwell threw the anti-trust

lawyers and their case right out of his court.

So that makes three times that the anti-trust lawyers made damaging rH

allegations against A&P. In two of these cases federal judges said they were all wrong. In the third case a federal judge said the indictment was inflammatory and he would not even permit the case to be tried. The anti-trust lawyers were not satisfied with the Dallas decision:

Neither were they satisfied with the two other decisions in which federal courts administered stinging rebukes to them.

In our next ad we will tell you how they continued i

their campaign in this case in the Circuit Court of : Appeals and subsequent proceedings.

set. In my opinion there is no testimony produced from which it can reasonably be

of potatoes. . “I might say that | never tried a case in my life where a greater effort, more work, more investigation had been done, combing al-

__ dence, as was done in this case.

inferred that the defendants entered into . a combination to depress or lower the price

“most with a fine-tooth comb to gather evi-

want it ever to occur in America that the size is going to determine whether a man is guilty or innocent.”

We will show you how, once again, they disagreed with :

— the courts.

Everything that has happersd since this suit was filed proves that the American people don’t want A&P destroyed.

A deluge of letters from people in all walks of life and thousands of editorials in Newspapers and ‘magazines

“convince us that the iE public ‘has faith in A&P.

Aico at

“But, as was said a long time ago, you can’t - make brick without straw, and you: can’t

make a case without facts.”

; So here were two cases in which thé anti-trust Elowrem= “made seriously damaging charges against A&P, in which

those charges.

Today, we wont ‘e tell y you 2 about the third t time —this time in Dallas, Texas—the court decided against the anti-trust jawyers. ‘

‘the judge decided that there were no facts to support :

HEA RAO

nr HR TET

“numbers and increasing volume.

Our suppliers, whom the anti-trust lawyers allege we have exploited. are rushing to our support.

“Labor losers mindful of the fact that: A&P employee enjoy the best wages; hours and working conditions; are a

Ria n

mei. many “of our — “competitors, ‘who the ‘anti-trust rar allege are hurt by our ee ition Fave; ta a ads to tell the public that they don’t like this attack on A&P. : .

a (

All this indicates that the American people realize. that the suit to destroy A&P i is really a suit against efficiency,

against low prices and against real competition.

Apparently most Americans do not want to let the anti-trust lawyers in Washington blow the whistle on any busi. nessman who does a better and more efficient job and grows big in the process.

No one can make them believe it is a crime to try to sell the best quality food at the lowest possible price.