ARKANSAS WHOLESALE GROCERS'ASS'N v. FEDERAL TRADE COM'N
Decision Date | 05 April 1927 |
Docket Number | No. 301.,301. |
Citation | 18 F.2d 866 |
Parties | ARKANSAS WHOLESALE GROCERS' ASS'N et al. v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Edgar Watkins, of Atlanta, Ga. (Watkins, Asbill & Watkins, of Atlanta, Ga., on the brief), for petitioners.
Eugene W. Burr, of Washington, D. C. (Bayard T. Hainer and Adrien F. Busick, both of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Before STONE and VAN VALKENBURGH, Circuit Judges, and TRIEBER, District Judge.
On or about September 13, 1924, a proceeding was instituted before the Federal Trade Commission against the Arkansas Wholesale Grocers' Association, its officers and members. The complaint charged that the Wholesale Grocers' Association therein named as respondent is a voluntary unincorporated association of individuals, partnerships and corporations with their principal places of business in the state of Arkansas, and engaged in selling, at wholesale, groceries and allied products to retail dealers located at points in Arkansas and in neighboring states, said members being banded together with said association for the purpose of promoting and protecting their common interest; that the members of the association are many in number, and in the aggregate constitute about one-half the number of all the wholesale dealers in the state of Arkansas; that said members and corporations, named as respondent, purchase the products in which they deal directly and immediately from manufacturers and producers located for the most part in states other than the state of Arkansas, and said manufacturers and producers ship the goods so purchased from their respective places of business in such other states to the members and corporation respondents in the state of Arkansas; that upon reselling said products in the course of their aforesaid business the members and corporation respondents cause said products to be transported from their respective places of business in the state of Arkansas to their vendees at their respective points of location in the state of Arkansas and in neighboring states; that said members and corporation respondents are normally in competition with each other in price and otherwise, and with other individuals, partnerships, and corporations also engaged in the purchase of like products from manufacturers and producers as aforesaid, and in the resale thereof in the territory served by said respondent association; that the respondents in said proceedings designate the channel of distribution commencing with the manufacturer or producer, flowing thence to the wholesaler, from the wholesaler to the retailer, and from the retailer to the consuming public, as the only regular and legitimate channel of distribution. Channels of distribution originating with the manufacturer or producer which do not flow through the wholesale dealer, but go direct to the consumer, or to a dealer doing both a wholesale and retail business, or direct to retail dealers, and especially to co-operative purchasing enterprises of retail dealers, are by said respondents designated as irregular and illegitimate channels of trade, and such dealers acquiring goods through so-called illegitimate channels are by respondents designated as irregular or illegitimate dealers. The complaint further charges that for more than three years, then last past, the respondents named therein have united in a common course of action and have co-operated and confederated together and with others to confine the distribution of groceries and allied products to the aforesaid so-called regular and legitimate channels of trade, to prevent so-called irregular and illegitimate dealers from obtaining groceries and allied products from manufacturers and producers thereof, and thereby to suppress competition and especially competition in price therein, in the territory which they serve.
In furtherance of this program it is charged that said respondents frequently hold general and special meetings for the interchange of information concerning and the discussion and adoption of plans and measures for the carrying out of their said undertaking; also by distributing and disseminating among respondents, the members of said respondent association, and others, bulletins published by respondent association containing names and lists of names of manufacturers and producers selling to so-called irregular dealers, and by correspondence and reports between the association and the members and between the members amongst themselves, all the members are informed of instances of the sale by manufacturers and producers of aforesaid products to so-called irregular dealers, and thereupon respondents bring pressure to bear upon such manufacturers and producers to cease dealing with such vendees, and by persuasion, intimidation, threats of boycott, and by boycott, attempt to and do coerce such manufacturers and producers to refrain from supplying such dealers with goods; that said respondents use other co-operative and individual means to carry out and make effective their aforesaid undertaking. It is further charged that said acts and things substantially lessen, hinder, and suppress competition in the sale and distribution of groceries and allied products in the territory served by respondents, obstruct the natural flow of commerce in the channels of interstate trade, and deny the dealers in and consumers of said commodities in the aforesaid territories advantages in price and otherwise which they would obtain from the natural flow of commerce in said commodities under conditions of free and unobstructed competition, all resulting in restraint of trade and to the prejudice of the public, of respondents' competitors and of manufacturers, producers, and dealers not complying with and adhering to the aforesaid plan and limitation of trade, and constituting unfair methods of competition in commerce within the meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act (Comp. St. §§ 8836a-8836k).
The record is long and tends to support the charges made in the complaint. As alleged therein the secretary of the respondent association sent out frequent bulletins to the membership, strongly urging them to refrain from trading with manufacturers and producers who sold directly to retailers, brokers, or consumers. A few quotations from these bulletins will serve to illustrate their character and objective. That of January 9, 1922, contains the following:
One of December 27, 1921, reads:
"Resolved, that as far as possible, we will give our orders for merchandise to those manufacturers who sell to the wholesale trade exclusively."
And, again:
A certain trade journal, known as "Duncan's Trade Register," on the cover of its issue of November, 1921, announced its purpose to publish a list of "undesirables," and in the course of its notice said:
The cover then gave as a sample of the list later to be published a number of prominent manufacturers and producers. The secretary of the respondent association, on November 3, 1921, issued a bulletin containing the following:
In the February issue of Duncan's Trade Register, under the heading "List of Undesirables and Malefactors of Great Wealth" appeared a list of corporations, manufacturers, and producers concerning which that magazine gave the following advice:
In the bulletin of February 8, 1922, the secretary of the respondent association makes the following comment:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chmielewski v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co.
...been regarded as constitutionally sufficient to protect the litigants' rights to due process. See Arkansas Wholesale Grocers' Assn. v. Federal Trade Commission, 18 F.2d 866, 871 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 275 U.S. 533, 48 S.Ct. 30, 72 L.Ed. 411 (1927); see also 2 Am.Jur.2d, Administrative La......
-
State v. Board of Education of City of Duluth, 33214.
...oppressive, and therefore in excess of its powers satisfies the requirements of due process. Arkansas Wholesale Grocers' Ass'n v. Federal Trade Comm., 8 Cir., 1927, 18 F.2d 866, 871, certiorari denied 275 U.S. 533, 48 S. Ct. 30, 72 L.Ed. Criticisms have often been made of the phenomenon whi......
-
Okla. Cotton Ginners' Ass'n v. State
...Shoe Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 280 U.S. 291, 74 L. Ed. 431, 50 S. Ct. 89; Arkansas Wholesale Grocers' Ass'n et al. v. Federal Trade Commission, 18 F.2d 866 (C. C. A. 8th Cir.), Cert. denied 289 U.S. 266, 77 L. Ed. 1166. ¶38 On appeal this court exercises an independent judgment upon ......
-
Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co.
...F. T. C., 51 F.2d 656 (3rd Cir., 1931); Wholesale Grocers' Assn. v. F. T. C., 277 F. 657 (5th Cir., 1922); Arkansas Wholesale Grocers' Assn. v. F. T. C., 18 F.2d 866 (8th Cir., 1927), cert. den. 275 U.S. 533, 48 S.Ct. 30, 72 L.Ed. 411 (1927). 13 Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 103 U.S. 261, 263, 26 L......