Mr. COLLINS. That is correct.

Mr. Cox. Before I go into that, I want to ask you one more question about the Anchor Hocking Corporation. That, in point of size, is about the third largest in the industry; is it not?

Mr. COLLINS. I think that is correct.

Mr. Cox. To return to the General Glass Co. and the license it had from Hartford-Empire to manufacture fruit jars, at a date in the spring of 1933 that license, so far as it permitted the manufacture of fruit jars, was canceled. Is that correct?

Mr. COLLINS. That's right.

Mr. Cox. Can you tell us what the consideration for that cancelation was?

Mr. COLLINS. $100,000.

Senator KING. Was it canceled while it was a subsidiary or after it had been absorbed, or did the absorption, if it was absorbed, have anything to do with the cancelation!

Mr. COLLINS. It had nothing to do with the cancelation. It was while it was a subsidiary of the Hocking Glass Co.

Mr. Cox. Now, Mr. Ball, I would like to ask you a question. Do you recollect whether your discussions with Mr. Smith prior to the making of your license agreement with the Hartford-Empire touched upon the matter of the license which the General Glass Co. had to make fruit jars? Was that matter discussed?

Mr. BALL. Yes, sir.

Mr. Cox. Do you recall whether you requested Mr. Smith to arrange to have that license canceled as a condition precedent to your taking a license from Hartford-Empire?

Mr. BALL. Yes, sir. That was one of the understandings, that some of those who had partial licenses and whole licenses would be canceled, so that they could deliver to us as near as possible the exclusive use of the patents.

Mr. Cox. Mr. Collins, was that license to the General Glass Co., so far as it related to fruit jars, a license which restricted the quantity that could be produced on the machines?

Mr. COLLINS. There were no restrictions, as I remember. I think that is true.

Mr. Cox. Do you recall whether it was ever suggested to you, Mr. Collins, that that license should be canceled without your receiving any consideration for it?

Mr. COLLINS. I don't think so. It might have been. We felt there was some value; naturally we wanted to get something for it if we were going to cancel it.

Mr. Cox. That was a matter which you and Mr. Levis and Mr. McNash discussed; was it not?

Mr. COLLINS. No: I never discussed it with Mr. McNash.

Mr. Cox. You don't remember discussing it with Mr. McNash and Mr. Levis while at White Sulphur Springs in the year of 1933? Mr. COLLINS. I don't think so.

Mr. Cox. But at any event you did receive $100,000 in cancelation of that license?

Mr. COLLINS. Yes.

Senator KING. From whom?

Mr. COLLINS. From the Hartford-Empire Co.

Mr. Cox. Mr. Collins, there is one more matter that I wish to ask you about. Thereafter, in 1933, do you recall some correspondence with the Hartford-Empire Co. with respect to sales of packers' ware by the General Glass Co. in competition with fruit jars?

Mr. COLLINS. In what year?

Mr. Cox. This would be in 1933, in August.

Mr. COLLINS. I don't recall it.

Mr. Cox. I am going to show you a letter now. First, you might tell me this, Mr. Collins. As an experienced glass manufacturer, is it your opinion that a packers' ware jar might be sold and used for the same purposes as a fruit jar in certain situations?

Mr. COLLINS. I think so.

Mr. Cox. They are enough alike in size and shape so that, as to use, they might be interchangeable?

Mr. COLLINS. That is right.

Mr. Cox. Now, I am about to hand you a letter dated August 17, 1933, addressed to you, which reads as follows [reading from "Exhibit 147"]:

I am enclosing copy of a letter just received from Mr. F. C. Ball, relative to packers' jars sold into the domestic fruit jar field.

We discussed this in New York and you assured me that you were using every effort to keep jars out of this field.

I feel, therefore, that in fairness to you, you should be advised about this complaint from Ball, as I know you won't misunderstand my sending it to you. Mr. Cox. The rest of the letter is not germane. It is signed "Sincerely yours, Roger Eldred."

Will you look at that and see if you can identify it as a letter which you in effect received?

Mr. COLLINS. Evidently I received it. It is addressed to me.

Mr. Cox. You are prepared to identify it as a letter you received? Mr. COLLINS. Yes.

Senator KING. Who is the sender?

Mr. Cox. The sender is Mr. Eldred. Can you tell us who Mr. Eldred is?

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Eldred is, I think, the general manager of the Hartford-Empire Co.

Mr. Cox. Vice president, I believe.

I should like to have that letter marked and admitted in evidence. The CHAIRMAN. It may be so admitted.

(The letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 147" and is included in the appendix on p. 791.)

Mr. Cox. Now Mr. Ball, do you recall about in August 1933, complaining to Mr. Eldred, of the Hartford-Empire Co., about sales of packers' ware in competition with fruit jars which your company was producing?

Mr. BALL. We did complain several times of their being sold in place of domestic jars. It was our understanding that we were to have the exclusive rights for domestic jars, and these so-called packers' jars were sold in place of domestic jars and we thought that it was an unfair practice.

Mr. Cox. I am going to show you a photostatic copy of a letter that purports to be a letter addressed by you to Mr. Eldred, together with certain attachments, and ask whether you or Mr. Bracken can identify the letter as one which you in fact wrote.

Mr. BALL. Yes, sir; I think that is authentic.

Mr. Cox. In order that the committee may understand what kinds of ware are involved, we have some samples here. This, I believe, is a fruit jar produced by your company, is that correct?

Mr. BALL. That is correct.

Senator KING. Mark it “A” on the side.

Mr. Cox. It is marked "A" on the side, Senator.

And this is a packers' ware jar produced by your company, is it

not?

Mr. BALL. I don't know that it was produced by our company, but it is a packers' jar; yes sir [examining jar]. Yes, sir; that was produced by our company. It has our company mark.

Mr. Cox. The committee will note the two jars are the same size and shape. In fact, the cap that normally goes on the fruit jar can be put on the packers' ware jar like that [demonstrating].

Then it was your understanding that as a result of your license agreement with Hartford-Empire, Mr. Ball, you were to have exclusive rights for the manufacture of fruit jars and that right carried with it the prevention of the kind of competition that you met from packers' ware jars when they were used for fruit-jar purposes; is that right?

Mr. BALL. Yes, sir.

Senator KING. I understood the witness to testify this morning that two other companies had the right to manufacture the same commodity which Mr. Ball's company has a right to manufacture, so that his license, or the license of his company, was taken subject to the licenses which had been granted to two other companies.

Mr. BRACKEN. If I may answer, schedule C of the contract shows that there were four other companies which had the right to make jars.

Mr. Cox. Can you tell us while we are on that subject, how many companies there are today who are manufacturing fruit jars? It is true that Hazel-Atlas manufactures them.

Mr. BRACKEN. That is correct.

Mr. Cox. And Owens-Illinois.
Mr. BRACKEN. That is correct.

Mr. Cox. And the Kerr Glass Co.
Mr. BRACKEN. That is correct.

Mr. Cox. And the Reed Glass Co., do you know whether they manufacture fruit jars?

Mr. BALL. If I may answer, they manufacture jars and have sold them to go into the domestic trade but, as we understand it, they have no license for manufacturing those jars from the HartfordEmpire Co.

Mr. Cox. Do you know of any other companies that are today manufacturing fruit jars?

Mr. BALL. There are several companies that have manufactured so-called packers' jars, but they are making them so that they will seal with the regular domestic fruit jar cap, and in that way they get them into the market and displace the regular domestic jars, and that we consider unfair practice. It was supposed that we would have exclusive right to make the jars used for domestic canning without being encroached upon by jars like these packers' jars. Mr. Cox. I would like to offer these letters.

(The letters referred to were marked collectively "Exhibit No. 148" and are included in the appendix on p. 791.)

Senator KING. The gentleman on your left, Mr. Ball, has just stated, if I understood him correctly, that your license was subject to prior licenses to four companies, is that correct?

Mr. BALL. Yes, sir.

Senator KING. Then your statement now that you had the exclusive right is not quite accurate, is it, if there were four other companies? Mr. BALL. The exclusive right beyond the licenses that had been granted prior.

Mr. BRACKEN. That was called, as I remember, the residual rights. Mr. Cox. That is correct, and the reason there is now a discrepancy between the four companies that Mr. Bracken spoke of as having been in contract and the ones I named a moment ago as having a license today, is because one of the licenses which existed as of the date of the contract I understand has since expired.

Mr. Collins, one more question: Did you as a result of receiving a letter from Mr. Eldred take any steps to see that the General Glass Co. ceased to sell and distribute packers' ware for use as domestic fruit jars?

Mr. COLLINS. The fact of the matter is that I don't think we ever made any effort to sell packers' jars as domestic fruit jars.

Senator KING. And you got the $100,000 without consideration? Mr. COLLINS. Oh, no.

Senator KING. You surrendered the license to make those jars and I understood you just now that you didn't make any.

Mr. COLLINS. That's right; as domestic fruit jars. We made packers' jars, which is the thing Mr. Ball was complaining about in that letter.

Mr. Cox. You were making fruit jars before you gave up the right to make them?

Mr. COLLINS. No; we never made them.

Mr. Cox. So you got the $100,000 for giving up the right to make a thing which you had never exercised.

Mr. COLLINS. Right.

Senator KING. It was a good trade, wasn't it? There are lots of potentialities, aren't there?

Mr. COLLINS. Right.

Mr. Cox. Mr. Collins, I think for the time being that is all I shall want from you, but I shall want some testimony on another subject later on.

Senator KING. Did you regard the license which your company held as of any value?

Mr. COLLINS. Yes; I certainly did, otherwise I wouldn't probably have asked $100,000 for it.

Senator KING. Although you never exercised the right the license gave?

Mr. COLLINS. Yes.

Senator KING. What part of the licenses, if there were more than one, or only one, that you held from the Hartford Co., did you reserve?

Mr. COLLINS. I reserved everything that we had in our license excepting the fruit jars, which I sold for $100,000. It didn't affect any other part of my license.

Senator KING. By your disposing of that right did you diminish competition?

Mr. COLLINS. So far as I was concerned, there was no competition, because we had never made them.

Senator KING. Did you intend to?

Mr. COLLINS. Not at that time; no.

Senator KING. Were you in competition with any other licensees of the Hartford Co. at the time that you parted with this right? Mr. COLLINS. Do you mean on fruit jars?

Senator KING. On anything.

Mr. COLLINS. Oh, yes.

Senator KING. What were you making, aside from fruit jars?

Mr. COLLINS. We made a general line of packers' ware of all types, narrow neck and wide mouth.

Senator KING. Does your company still continue in operation?
Mr. COLLINS. Right.

Senator KING. Making the same commodities?

Mr. COLLINS. Right.

Senator KING. Are you in competition with other companies?

Mr. COLLINS. Yes; with Owens-Illinois, Hazel-Atlas, and every company that is named on that board.

Senator KING. Is there competition among you?

Mr. COLLINS. Plenty.

Senator KING. No combination in restraint of trade; no agree

ment to fix prices?

Mr. COLLINS. No, sir.

Senator KING. Has there ever been?

Mr. COLLINS. No, sir.

Senator KING. Do you believe in a competitive system?

Mr. COLLINS. That is what we have lived under all our lifetime. Senator KING. Have you had fierce competition or any competition in the market?

Mr. COLLINS. Yes; plenty of competition.

Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. Collins, with regard to that $100,000, was there any other consideration besides that?

Mr. COLLINS. No.

Mr. PATTERSON. It wasn't $100,000 plus?

Mr. COLLINS. It was $100,000 for our fruit jars.

Mr. PATTERSON. And a clean bill of sale.

Mr. Cox. Mr. Ball, I might ask you this. Was it your understanding when you paid the money which you paid to Hartford as consideration for the license agreement that part of that money was to be used to buy back the fruit jar rights of the General Glass Co.? Mr. BALL. We didn't know at that time what the Hartford-Empire would do with the amount that we paid. They exacted $100,000 for the rights that they proposed to grant to us and they were to eliminate the competition that might come from these factories that had licenses, and by that we supposed that they would in some way make settlement with those companies. We did not know at that time how they would make those settlements.

Mr. Cox. You simply knew that with respect to the General Glass Co. they were going to get that right back-Hartford-Empire was going to get it back. You didn't know how or how much they were going to pay to get it back.