ORDERS OF DISMISSAL THE ANDERSON Co., Complaint, April 26, 1928, Order, June 12, 1929. (Docket 1512.) Charge: Maintaining resale prices; in connection with the sale of Ford timers and of an electric windshield wiper. Dismissed, after answer and trial, without assignment of reasons. Appearances: Mr. James M. Brinson for the Commission. E. R. MARSHALL, trading as Crescent Calendar Co., Complaint, July 17, 1925. Order, June 29, 1929. (Docket 1334.) Charge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly; in connection with the production and sale of printed matter, including commencement announcements, invitations, folders, and cards for schools, colleges, and universities. Dismissed, after trial, without assignment of reasons. Appearances: Mr. Richard P. Whiteley for the Commission; Barnes, Chamberlain, Hanzlik & Thompson, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for respondent. LIONEL STRONGFORT INSTITUTE, Complaint, May 19, 1928. Order, July 8, 1929. (Docket 1528.) Charge: Misrepresenting prices, misrepresenting product or service, offering falsely articles as free, and advertising falsely or misleadingly; in connection with the sale of courses by mail in physical culture. Dismissed, after answer, stipulation, and trial, by the following order: The above-entitled proceeding coming on for consideration by the Commission, and it appearing that the subject matter of the complaint had been disposed of satisfactorily to the Commission by stipulation, and the Commission now being fully advised in the premises, It is ordered, That the complaint herein be and the same hereby is dismissed. Appearances: Mr. Martin A. Morrison for the Commission; Herrigel, Lindabury & Herrigel, of Newark, N. J., for respondent. THEONETT & Co., INo., Complaint, Feb. 1, 1929. Order, July 8, 1929. (Docket 1556.) Charge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly; in connection with the manufacture and sale of artificially flavored and/or colored flavors and concentrates. Dismissed, after answer, stipulation and trial, without assignment of reasons. Appearances: Mr. Edward L. Smith for the Commission; Mr. W. Parker Jones, of Washington, D. C., and Lannen & Hickey, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent. PEPSODENT CO., Complaint, May 19, 1927. Order, September 23, 1929. (Docket 1462.). Charge: Maintaining resale prices; in connection with the sale of dentifrices. Dismissed, after answer and stipulation, by the following order: The above-entitled proceeding coming on for consideration on the complaint of the Commission, answer of respondent, and stipulation as to the facts, and the Commission now being fully advised in the premises, It is ordered, That the complaint herein be and the same is hereby dismissed. Appearances: Mr. William A. Sweet for the Commission; Fisher, Boyden, Kales & Bell, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent. B. Z. B. KNITTING CO., Complaint, November 5, 1924. Order, September 30, 1929. (Docket 1245.) Charge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly and misbranding or mislabeling; in connection with the manufacture, sale and distribution of hosiery. Dismissed, after answer, by the following order: The above entitled proceeding coming on for consideration upon the complaint of the Commission, answer of respondent and stipulation of facts, and the Commission now being fully advised in the premises, It is ordered, That the complaint herein be and the same is hereby dismissed. Appearances: Mr. G. Ed. Rowland for the Commission; Mr. Edward P. Lathrop, of Rockford, Ill., and Greene & Hurd of New York City, for respondent. WIRZ & WAIDMANN, INC., trading under the name and style of United Provision Co., Complaint, April 29, 1929. Order, December 9, 1929. (Docket 1613.) Charge: Misbranding or mislabeling or simulating labels and wrappers of competitor; in connection with the manufacture and sale of sausage, sausage meat, and other pork products. Dismissed, after answer, without assignment of reasons. Appearances: Mr. William A. Sweet for the Commission; Mr. Bernard G. Ostmann and Mr. Chester A. Bennett, of Washington, D. C., for respondent. REIFSCHNEIDER PAINT & GLASS Co., Complaint, October 29, 1929. Order, December 9, 1929. (Docket 1716.) Charge: Disparaging competitive products and impeding or eutting off competitive access to market through purchase, and sale below cost; in connection with the purchase and sale of paint. Dismissed, after answer, without assignment of reasons. HENRY MYER TYREAD MANUFACTURING Co., Complaint, February 20, 1929. Order, December 16, 1929. (Dock. 1568.) Charge: Naming and representing product misleadingly, misbranding or mislabeling and advertising falsely or misleadingly in regard thereto; in connection with the manufacture, sale and distribution of sewing thread. Dismissed, after answer and stipulation, without assignment of reasons. Appearances: Mr. Henry Miller for the Commission; Schuyler, Weinfeld & Parker, of Chicago, Ill., for repondent. BLANKE-BAER EXTRACT & PRESERVING CO., Complaint, May 14, 1929. Order, December 16, 1929. (Docket 1619.) Charge: Misrepresenting product, misbranding or mislabeling and advertising falsely or misleadingly; in connection with the manufacture and sale of flavoring extracts and concentrates for use in the compounding of soft drinks. Dismissed, after answer and trial, without assignment of reasons. Appearances: Mr. G. Ed. Rowland for the Commission; Leahy, Saunders & Walther, of St. Louis, Mo., for respondent. LINCOLN AUTO AND TRACTOR SCHOOL, doing business under the trade name and style of Lincoln Engineering School. Complaint, October 13, 1928. Order, December 23, 1929. (Docket 1539.) Charge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly as to business advantages or size, results accomplished and to be anticipated, money back guarantee, pretended special reduced prices, and offer free of products, in fact charged for; in connection with the sale of a course in automotive repairing by mail. Dismissed, after answer and trial, without assignment of reasons. Appearances: Mr. Alfred M. Craven for the Commission. PHILIP LIPSITZ, trading under the name and style American Smelting & Refining Works. Complaint, February 11, 1929. Order, January 7, 1930. (Docket 1560.) Charge: Appropriating trade or corporate name of competitor and advertising falsely or misleadingly; in connection with the manufacture and sale of solder, babbits, type metals, pig lead, bar lead, ingot lead, red lead, white lead, antimonial lead, lead head nails and other metal products, and treating, smelting, and refining of metals, minerals, and ores and in the sale of said products treated, smelted, and refined. Dismissed, after answer and trial, without assignment of reasons. 24925-31-VOL 13- -22 Appearances: Mr. Henry Miller for the Commission; Saner, Saner & Jack of Dallas, Tex., for respondent. RADIO ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. Complaint, January 17, 1929. Order, January 13, 1930. (Docket 1555.) Charge: Using misleading corporate name and advertising falsely or misleadingly as to business status, free services or products, and nature, results and need of service offered, prices, and "money back " guarantee; in connection with the business of conducting a course of instruction in the art of radio, electricity, and other mechanics incidental thereto, by correspondence through the United States mail, and in the business of dealing and trading in radio receiving sets, accessories, parts, equipment, and electrical supplies incident to the course of instruction in the aforesaid art. Dismissed, after answer and trial, without assignment of reasons. Appearances: Mr. Richard P. Whiteley for the Commission; Mr. Stephen A. Day of Evanston, Ill., for respondent. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ADVERTISING AGENCIES, its officers, executive board, and members, et al. Complaint,' January 20, 1926. Order, January 22, 1930. (Docket 1251.) Charge: Combining or conspiring to control channels of distribution and to enforce a standard differential; in connection with the placing of national advertising, more specifically, to compel " national advertisers to employ respondent agencies or other advertising agencies in the placing of national advertising in newspapers throughout the United States, to prevent said advertisers from advertising directly in said newspapers at net rates and to compel said advertisers to pay for direct advertising at gross rates" and in connection with the enforcement of a standard differential of 15 per cent on the regular or gross advertising rates of the periodicals as minimum compensation for the advertising agencies." Dismissed, after answer and trial, without assignment of reasons. 1 Amended. As set forth in the Commission's brief, respondents were charged with seeking, through cooperatively bringing pressure to bear and otherwise "First, to prevent direct advertisers from obtaining national advertising at net rates and that, to avoid the resulting increased cost, they be restrained to employ advertising agencies; "Second, to prevent publishers from selling advertising space to direct advertisers at less than their gross or card rates; and "Third, to eliminate from business agencies which do not receive the full differential as their minimum remuneration or which share the differential with an advertiser." Respondents joined in this case, included, in addition to American Association of Advertising Agencies, the American Press Association, Inc., the Six Point League, the American Newspaper Publishers Association, the Southern Newspaper Publishers Association, and certain individuals, joined in their individual capacity and as directors and officers of the foregoing respondents. Appearances: Mr. Eugene W. Burr and Mr. Henry Miller for the Commission; McKercher & Link and Breed, Abbott & Morgan, of New York City, for American Association of Advertising Agencies, its officers, executive board, and members; McKercher & Link, of New York City, for James O'Shaughnessy, individually and as executive secretary of said association; Brodek, Raphael & Eisner, of New York City, for American Press Association; Morris, Plante & Saxe, of New York City, and Hanson, Lovett & Dale, of Washington, D. C., for the Six Point League, its officers, executive committee, and members; and the American Newspaper Publishers' Association; Finlay & Campbell, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for Southern Newspaper Publishers' Association, its officers, directors, and members. CONSOLIDATED CIGAR CORPORATION. Complaint, April 5, 1927. Order, January 22, 1930. (Docket 1451.) Charge: Acquisition of the stock of competitors in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act; in connection with the manufacture and sale of cigars. Dismissed, after answer and trial, without assignment of reasons, Commissioner McCulloch filing dissenting opinion. Appearances: Mr. William T. Chantland for the Commission; Mr. Herbert H. Maass, of New York City, and Mr. Vernon W. Van Fleet and Mr. Charles S. Moore, of Washington, D. C., for respondent. Dissent by Commissioner McCulloch I am unwilling to join in the dismissal of the complaint, for it seems clear to me that the respondent has violated the first paragraph of section 7 of the Clayton Act, which reads as follows: That no corporation engaged in commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital of another corporation engaged also in commerce, where the effect of such acquisition may be to substantially lessen competition between the corporation whose stock is so acquired and the corporation making the acquisition, or to restrain such commerce in any section or community, or tend to create a monopoly of any line of commerce. The material facts in the case are undisputed. Respondent acquired, by purchase, all of the capital stock of the G. H. P. Cigar Co., Inc., both being Delaware corporations with principal places of business in New York City, both engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigars, each operating several factories and selling throughout most of the United States. All of the voting stock of the G. H. P. Co., 4,775 shares, was purchased by respondent at the total price of $8,833,750, and the stock was transferred directly to respondent. At the time of the acquisition respondent's capital stock, preferred and common, together with surplus, aggregated in value the sum of $13,731,076.76, and its annual sale of cigars dur |