_— The Bulletin, Mt. Joy, Pa., Thursday, February 9, 1950-8
The Third Time The
Anti-Trust Lawyers Were Wrong!
Is it a crime to give people more good food for their money?
For 90 years A&P has devoted all its energies to this end.

8

A For many months now the anti-trust lawyers from Washington have been giving stories to the newspapers,
we vu Wh H making speeches and talking over the radio about this company.
| at as Gone B ef ore They have been making serious and damaging allegations about the methods that enable A&P to give its cus-
Today’s ad is the third in a series telling about tomers better food values.
ing u ; :
. pi the satires: lawyers Dads Seflous i We have already told you about other times the anti-trust lawyers made charges against us that were proved
amaging charges agains at the courts Iv false in court
decided were not true. utterly ia :
ys In the first ad in this series we told you about the time In the left-hand column on this page you can read what the federal judges had to say about those two cases.
"\ the anti-trust lawyers charged that A&P, and other good : . s . . . .
| citizens, conspired to fix the price of bread in Now. we are going to tell you about the third time a federal judge decided against the anti-trust lawyers.
ashington.
These charges were false. ——
: i That was the time Federal Judge T. Alan Golds- || A ti T t S it
i borough instructed the jury to bring in a verdict e a as n 1 - Y us ul
! : of “not guilty”, :
4 It was the time he said to the anti-trust lawyers: . 1 t out to Dallas. Texas Judge Atwell also said to the anti-trust lawyers:
: “If you were to show this record to any ex- In 1942 the anti-trust lawyers went out io Dallas, ) mT :
perienced trial lawyer in the world, he 1,400 miles from the homes of most of the defendants, “If the indictment is not good then it is better to
would tell you that there was not any evi- and instigated criminal charges against A&P. find out before an expensive trial than it is after an
dence at all. About this case one thing was sure. expensive trial. I do not think it is good, and think-
JES “Honestly, 1 have never in my over forty DL vs ing that, it is my duty to sustain the demurrers and
: 4 noe oer ied nee thet ws Their previous experience did not deter the anti-trust lawyers from motion to quash.”
a, @ a folistely devoid of Suen as Lass, making more inflammatory and damaging allegations, just as they In short, Federal Judge Atwell tirew the
ess one like it.” had done before. lawyers and their case right out of his court
Re Bt fe veh on tus only ph rey ee Tne They made practically the same allegations they are So that makes three times that the anti-trust lawyers made damaging
| Was In our second ad we told you about the time in making today. Blisgarions agsinst bn oo of ; hise federal » dges said
Wilson, North Carolina, they charged A&P’s t ey werea wrong. in the third case a federa Judge sai t eindictment
fresh fruit and vegetable buying subsidiary, and Federal Judge W. H. Atwell ruled that the case should not even be tried. was inflammatory and he would not even permit the case to be tried.
other good American citizens, with conspiring to Hesaid that the indlel ment contsips statements thathe The anti-trust lawyers were not satisfied with the Dallas decision.
| : : ; nted to a jur
i | FX prices eid farmiors for potatons would not permit to be prese uy Neither were they satisfied with the two other decisions in which
ES! | y Virg y . Judge Atwell said to the anti-trust lawyers: federal courts administered stinging rebukes to them.

Here again, as in the Washington bread case, the charges
were false.
This was the time Federal Judge C. C. Wyche
directed the jury to bring in a verdict of “not
guilty”.
It was the time he said to the anti-trust lawyers:
“I have studied this case from the very out-
set. In my opinion there is no testimony
produced from which it can reasonably be
inferred that the defendants entered into
a combination to depress or lower the price
of potatoes.
“I might say that I never tried a case in my
life where a greater effort, more work, more
investigation had been done, combing al-
most with a fine-tooth comb to gather evi-
dence, as was done in this case.
“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 the anti-trust lawyers
made seriously damaging charges against A&P, in which
the judge decided that there were no facts to support
those charges.
Today, we want to tell you about the third time
—this time in Dallas, Texas—the court decided
against the anti-trust lawyers.

“If I thought I was presiding over a court and that I
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
want it ever to occur in America that the size is going
to determine whether a man is guilty or innocent.”
They were still determined to destroy A&P.
In our next ad we will tell you how they continued
their campaign in this case in the Circuit Court of
Appeals and subsequent proceedings.
We will show you how, once again, they disagreed with
the courts.
Everything that has happened 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 public has faith in A&P.
The housewives of this nation, whose patronage has made this company big, are buying from us in increasing
numbers and increasing volume.
Our suppliers, whom the anti-trust lawyers allege we have exploited, are rushing to our support.
Labor leaders, mindful of the fact that A&P employees enjoy the best wages, hours and working conditions, are
taking a stand against the suit.
Even many of our good competitors, who the anti-trust lawyers allege are hurt by our competition, have taken
ads to tell the public that they don’t like this attack on A&P.
All this indicates that the American people realize that the suit to destroy A&P 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.