ORDERS OF DISMISSAL

LOUIS W. MEYER, DOING BUSINESS AS GRAND RAPIDS FURNITURE SALES CO.; AND WESTERN FURNITURE MANUFACTURERS EXPOSITION, INC., December 10, 1925. (Docket 1244.)

Charge: Adopting and using misleading trade and corporate name, advertising falsely or misleadingly and misrepresenting business status or connections; in connection with the sale of furniture. Dismissed for the reason "that respondent has gone out of business."

Appearances: Mr. Morgan J. Doyle for the Commission.

BANNER SILK KNITTING MILLS, INC., December 10, 1925. (Docket 1280.)

Charge: Adopting and using misleading corporate name and advertising falsely or misleadingly; in connection with the manufacture and sale of textiles or fabrics.

Dismissed for the reason "that respondent has discontinued

business."

Appearances: Mr. O. R. Stites for the Commission; Gilbert & Gilbert, of New York City, for respondent.

JOSEPH P. MANNING Co., December 11, 1925. (Docket 1072.)

Charge: Discriminating in price in violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and of section 2 of the Clayton Act, respectively; in connection with the sale of tobacco and tobacco products.

Dismissed, after answer, "on recommendation of the chief counsel for the Commission," Commissioner Thompson dissenting. Appearances: Mr. Robt. N. McMillen for the Commission; Mr. Henry V. Cunningham, of Boston, Mass., for respondent.

REAL SILK HOSIERY MILLS, December 11, 1925. (Docket 1123.) Charge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly and misrepresenting products offered; in connection with the manufacture and sale of hosiery.

Dismissed, after answer, stipulation, and trial, by the following

order:

421

The above-entitled proceeding having come on for final determination, and it appearing to the Commission that the record fails. to prove the use of any of the practices charged in the complaint except those charged in paragraph 4 thereof, which in substance charges the circulation of false and misleading statements, respondent having represented by advertisement, by reprints therefrom, and by selling talks of salesmen; that it produces its own silk in Japan; that it possessed a greater capacity to produce hosiery than it actually possessed; and that the volume of hosiery it produced was greater than the amount it actually did produce, and as to these the respondent has stipulated that it made use of such practices for a time, but had abandoned the use thereof and would never again resume the same, it is therefore concluded that there is no longer any public interest in further action; and in consideration of the foregoing,

It is ordered, That the complaint herein be, and the same is, hereby dismissed.

By the Commission.

Commissioner Thompson dissented and made the attached state

ment:

I am in accord with the majority of the Commission in dismissing the complaint as to all matters except the misrepresentations in advertising the following:

The finest silk in the world comes from Japan. In Japan today 4,000 people are working to produce raw silk for the exclusive use of Real Silk Hosiery Mills, of Indianapolis. Our inspectors, right on the ground, insist that the quality standards of the Real Silk Hosiery Mills be strictly maintained. Every detail is scientifically supervised-the selection of silk worms crossed to secure silk of maximum tensile strength and the highest luster, their feeding and care, and the cultivation of hundreds of acres of mulberry trees from which the worms are feeding. Absolutely nothing is left to chance

While this advertisement was carried but once in the Saturday Evening Post, the respondent had reprints made of it and enclosed the reprints in books which were carried by its salesmen in their sales kits and were used by the salesmen in their talks to customers. In fact, it appeared at the time of the argument before the Commission, that the sales books carried this reprint up until the time of the taking of testimony in the case. As the facts were not true and as the statements contained assertions practically similar to those condemned in the case of Sears, Roebuck & Company v. The Commission,1 I am unable to differentiate the reason for issuing an order in the latter case and not in the instant case.

1258 Fed. 307, 2 F. T. C. 536.

Appearances: Mr. G. Ed. Rowland for the Commission; Mr. Edmund H. Parry, of Washington, D. C., and Mr. Ralph Bamberger, of Indianapolis, Ind., for respondent.

MORRIS & CO., December 14, 1925. (Docket 452.)

Charge: Acquisition of stock of competitor in violation of sections 7 and 5 of the Clayton and Federal Trade Commission Acts, respectively, in connection with the production and sale of meats, oleomargarine, cheese, poultry and eggs, etc.

Dismissed, after answer, trial and stipulation, "upon recommendation of chief counsel of the Commission for the reason that respondent has gone out of business."

Appearances: Mr. J. A. Burdeau, Mr. W. T. Chantland and Mr. G. R. Jackson for the Commission; Mr. John M. Lee, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.

L. PINCUS AND BENJAMIN BLANSTEIN, PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE TRADE NAMES LOUBEN FURNITURE CO. AND THE BIG G FURNITURE WAREHOUSE, December 14, 1925. (Docket 1154.)

Charge: Advertising falsely and misleadingly and misrepresenting business status or connections; in connection with the sale of furniture.

Dismissed "upon recommendation of the chief counsel for the Commission for the reason that the respondent has gone out of business."

Appearances: Mr. Morgan J. Doyle for the Commission.

SWIFT & CO. AND UNITED DRESSED BEEF Co., December 19, 1925. (Docket 454.)

Charge: Acquisition of stock of competitors in violation of sections 5 and 7 of the Federal Trade Commission and Clayton Acts, respectively; in connection with the slaughtering of live stock, and of producing and dealing in meats and all kinds of products and by-products arising out of the slaughtering of live stock.

Dismissed, after answer and trial, without assignment of reasons. Appearances: Mr. J. A. Burdeau, Mr. W. T. Chantland, and Mr. G. R. Jackson for the Commission; Mr. Albert H. Veeder and Mr. Henry Veeder and Mr. Frank L. Horton of Chicago, Ill., and Mr. L. A. Ackley, of New York City, for respondents.

ONEIDA COMMUNITY, LTD., December 19, 1925. (Docket 1101.) Charge: Resale price maintenance; in connection with the manufac ture and sale of silver-plated flatware.

Dismissed, after answer and trial, by the following order:

The above-entitled proceeding coming on for consideration upon the complaint of the Commission, answer of respondent, testimony

and evidence, briefs and oral argument, and the Commission now being fully advised in the premises,

It is ordered, That the complaint be dismissed for the reason that the record shows without contradiction that the unfair practices complained of were abandoned on or about the 1st of June, 1922, and have not since been resumed, and that the time of abandonment was but a few months after the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Beech-Nut Packing Co. case, which settled the law with respect to the maintenance of prices by cooperative methods.

Appearances: Mr. Alfred M. Craven for the Commission; Mr. Gilbert H. Montague for respondent.

UNITED STATES ROOFING & PAINT CO., INC., December 19, 1925. (Docket 1300.)

Charge: Misbranding or mislabeling and advertising falsely or misleadingly; in connection with the sale of paints, colors, varnishes, asphalt shingles, prepared roofings, insulating and water-proof papers, wall board and similar products.

Dismissed for the reason that "respondent has abandoned the practice charged."

Appearances: Mr. Henry Miller for the Commission; Brill & Maslon of Minneapolis, Minn., for respondent.

CONTINENTAL BAKING CORPORATION, December 19, 1925. (Docket

1305.)

Charge: Acquisition of stock of competitors in violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act; in connection with the manufacture, purchase and sale of bakery products.

Dismissed by the following order:

It being made known to the Commission that, since the complaint. was issued herein on April 10, 1925, the respondent has acquired the stock or share capital of nine or more other corporations, and it appearing that such subsequent acquisitions of stock and the acquisitions described in the complaint herein should be included in one proceeding against this respondent, and the Commission being duly advised in the premises:

It is ordered, That the complaint herein be, and the same is hereby, dismissed without prejudice to the right to issue and hear a complaint charging the respondent with all its acquisitions of stock or share capital to this date as a violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act.

Appearances: Mr. A. R. Brindley for the Commission.

1257 U. S. 441, 4 F. T. C. 583.

INTERWOVEN STOCKING CO., December 21, 1925. (Docket 1189.). Charge: Resale price maintenance; in connection with the manufacture and sale of men's hosiery.

Dismissed, after answer and trial, without assignment of reasons. Appearances: Mr. J. T. Clark for the Commission; Mr. Louis Prevost Whitaker, of New York City, and Mr. Edward S. Rogers, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.

ASSOCIATION, OF TREN(Docket 1257.)

SOUTH JERSEY WHOLESALE CONFECTIONERS' TON, NEW JERSEY, ET AL., December 30, 1925. Charge: Combining and conspiring to fix uniform prices and prevent price competition; in connection with the sale of candy.

Dismissed, after answer and trial, by the following order:

The above-entitled proceeding coming on for decision by the Commissica, upon the complaint of the Commission, the answer of respondents, the testimony and evidence, and the briefs and argument of counsel, and the Commission having considered the record, and being now fully advised in the premises:

It is ordered, That this proceeding be, and the same is hereby, dismissed upon the ground that the South Jersey Wholesale Confectioners' Association of Trenton, N. J., discontinued its activities before the issuance of the complaint herein and is no longer in existence. Commissioner Thompson dissents.

Appearances: Mr. Richard P. Whiteley for the Commission; Mr. W. Holt Apgar, of Trenton, N. J., for respondent.

PLATELESS ENGRAVING CO., January 9, 1926. (Docket 1294.) Charge: Using misleading corporate name and advertising falsely or misleadingly, in connection with the printing by special process, and sale of, social and business stationery.

Dismissed, after answer, by the following order:

This proceeding coming on for final disposition by the Commission, and respondent having executed the stipulation herein and performed the provisions thereof and changed its corporate name to Plateless Process & Printing Co.

It is ordered, That the complaint herein be, and the same is hereby, dismissed.

Commissioner Nugent dissents.

Appearances: Mr. Morgan J. Doyle for the Commission.

WILSON & CO., INC., January 16, 1926. (Docket 450.)

Charge: Acquisition of stock of competitor (Paul O. Reyman) in violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act, in connection with the slaughtering of cattle and other livestock and in the preparation and sale of meats, meat products, and by-products.