Fall River Wholesale Grocers' Associatiom

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

IN Tile MATTER OF FALL RIVER "WHOLESALE GROCERS' ASSOCIATION ET AL.

COMPLAINT, FINDINGS, AND ORDER IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 11 OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED SEPT. 26, 1914 Docket 26"17. Oompla~nt, Jan. 4, 1936-J?eci.si.on, Dec. 9, 1936. Where a wholesale grocers association, and the members thereof, serving a trade area in certain States contiguous to a Massachusetts city; in pursuance of a policy, agreed upon and adopted by such members, of refusing to deal with manufacturers of grocery products who had sold, or sold, their products to retailers in the region in question- ( a) Informed manufacturers of policy of such association and its members, and threatened to refuse, and refused, to purchase from such manufacturers as failed or refused to comply with their wishes that they do not distribute their products to retailers thereof;

(b) Placed on the unfair list of the association, for selling to large retailers in region in question, name of a large milk product manufacturer, and warned its members to cease handling prouucts thereof under penalty of forfeitLng their association deposits, and advised manufacturer of such action and that association members would no longer be allowed to do business with it;

(c) Issued and distl"ibuted a letter announcing that its members had "decided definitely to cooperate only with those producers, packers, or manufacturers who wlll confine themselves to selling their merchandise to wholesale grocers," and requested that the recipients thereof advise as to whether or not they would cooperate in the matter; (d) neached on agreement between their said wholesalers' association and that of the retail grocers in the region in question, working to the prevention and restraint of purchases by retailers direct from manufacturers, and threatened to suspend any wholesaler member who refused to sign and subscribe thereto; and (e) Took, at different times, course of action similar to that hereinabove indicated against large sugar and coffee manufacturers; With result that manufacturers were coerced into refusing to sell their products direct to retailers, including large retailer competitors of association members, sales and distribution by ruiwufucturers to retailers in region in question were restrained and prevented, and interstate commerce In groceries was unduly restrained and hindered, and there was an undue tendency to substantially lessen, restt·lct, and suppress competition in interstate sale ot such products therein :

lleld, That such acts and practices were to tbe prejudice of the publle and competitors and constituted unfair methods of competition. Before Mr. John J. [{ ee:nan, trial examiner. Mr. Daniel J. Murphy for the Commission.

Air. /sador S. Levin, of Fall River, Mass., for respondents. Complaint 24 F. T. C. Col\IPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of an Act of Congress approved September 26, 1914, entitled "An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes," the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that each and all of the parties named in the caption hereof have been and now are using unfair methods of competition in commerce as "commerce" is defined in said act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint and states its charges in that respect as follows: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Fall River 1Vholesale Grocers' Association is a corporation organized, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Massachusetts, for the asserted purpose of furthering harmonious relations between the wholesale and the retail grocery dealers of Fall River in said State, and has its principal place of business at said Fall River. Said respondent had and has as its particular avowed purpose to cooperate with the independent retail grocery stores in said Fall River and contiguous region in offering special sales and inducements to customers in an effort to meet the competition of the chain grocery stores. For brevity and convenience this respondent will be hereinafter designated as the "Wholesalers' Association."

Each of the respondents American 1Vholesale Grocery Company, Allen Slade & Company, Chabot Brothers, and Portuguez Wholesale Grocery Company, is a corporation organized, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Massachusetts. Respondents Abraham I. Y amins and Samuel Levin are copartners doing business in the name of New England Wholesale Grocery Company; and respondents Murray S. Olinick and George Feinberg are copartners doing business in the name of Economy 1Vholesale Grocery Company.

Respondent Morris Horovitz is an individual trading as Fall River Paper & Supply Company; respondent Joseph Horovitz is an indi· vidual trading as Joseph Horovitz & Company; and respondent Phillip J. Roy is nn individual trading as Roy Paper Company. Each of said responaents has its, their and his principal place of business in said city of Fall River, State of Massachusetts, and each of them except the 1Vholesalers' Association is engaged in the business of selling and distributing food and grocery products at wholesale in the region of said Fall River. Said Fall River region comprises not only said city of Fall River but also the trade area contiguous to it in the State of Massachusetts and also in the State of Rhode Island. FALL RIVER WHOLESALE GHOCERS' ASS'N ET AL. 135 133 Complaint Each of said corporations, partnerships, and individuals was at all the times hereinafter mentioned and is a member of said Fall River Wholesale Grocers' Association for the purpose of promoting and protecting its, their and his common interests and business affairs, and said respondents will for brevity and convenience be hereinafter designated as "member respondents" when differentiation of them from respondent 'Vholesalers' Association is necessary. Said member respondents purchased and purchase in interstate commerce the food and grocery products sold and distributed by them in the said Fall River region from manufacturers and producers in other States than the State of Massachusetts and which products so purchased were and are shipped from such other States into the State of Massachusetts to said member respondents and were and are there sold and distributed by each of said member respondents to retailers in the States of Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

Respondent Wholesalers' Association is an organization which has provided and does provide a means or channel for its members acting in concert and in the name of said association to further their common interests in their businesses mentioned above, and each of the member respondents utilizes it for its, their or his private purposes. The acts of said association, therefore, have represented and do represent and have been and now are the acts of such members resulting from agreements, express or implied, between and among, and concerted action and conspiracy of all of, said respondents in their said common interests and in the furtherance of their said private purposes. PAn. 2. In the course and conduct of the business and activities of respondent 'Vholesalers' Association and of the concerted action and conspiracy above stated of all the respondents, and at various time~ during the past three years, respondent 'Vholcsalers' Association in behalf of itself and of each and all of said member respondents, and in pursuance of a policy agreed upon and adopted by said member respondents of refusing to deal with manufacturers of food and grocery products who have sold or sell such products to retailers thereof in the said Fall River region, or to wholesalers of such products in said region who are not members of respondent Wholesalers' Association, by the use of unlawful threats, intimidations, and boycotts has restrained and prevented and does restrain and prevent various manufacturers of such products selling and distributing the same in interstate commerce from making sales and distributions thereof in said Fall River region to any individual, partnership, or corporation in said region engaged in the sale and uistribution of such prouucts other than the member respondents above named, and specifically has by such unlawful means restrained and pre- FEDERAL TRADE COl\Il\IISSION DECISIONS136 Complaint 24 F. T. C. vented and does restrain and prevent and has sought and does seek to restrain and prevent all such sales and distributions in said Fall River region by such manufacturers to retailers of such products and to wholesalers thereof who are not members of respondent 'Wholesalers' Association; and solely as a result of such unlawful threats, intimidations, and boycotts, various manufacturers of such products selling and distributing same in interstate commerce who have been ready, willing, and able to make sales and distributions thereof in said Fall River region to retailers of such products and to wholesalers thereof who are not members of respondent 'Wholesalers' Association, have been and are restrained and prevented from making any sales and distributions in interstate commerce of such products to certain of said retailers and to certain of said wholesalers who are not members of respondent 'Wholesalers' Association, and in some instances where some restricted sales and distributions in interstate commerce have been made to certain other of said retailers and of said wholesalers who are not members of respondent 'Vholesalers' Association by certain manufacturers, the member respondents have by agreement and concerted action among themselves and with respondent Wholesalers' Association discontinued making purchases in interstate commerce from such manufacturers of such products theretofore purchased in interstate. commerce by them from such manufacturers and have thereupon and thereafter declined and refused to make any purchases whatever of such products from such manufac· turers while and so long as such. manufacturers continued to make sales and distributions in said Fall River region of such products to such retailers or to such wholesalers who are not members of respondent 'Vholesalers' Association.

In the course and conduct of the business and activities of respondent Wholesalers' Association and of the concerted action and conspiracy above stated of all the respondents, certain manufacturers of food and grocery products sold and distributed in interstate commerce have been compelled by respondents to accept pooled ortlers for such products for shipment in carload lots in order that the member responuents might obtain the advantage of the lower freight rate and incidental expenses applicable to carload shipments when the total of such pooled orders has been less than a carload lot, ha \'e been compelled in connection with such shipments to carry for their own account the unsold residuum of such carload shipments, but have been restrained and prevented in such instances from selling any part of such residuum in said Fall River rE>gion to retailers of such products or to wholesalers thereof who are not members of respondent Wholesalers' Association and instead have been required and com· FALL RIVER WHOLESALE GROCERS' ASS'N ET AL. 137 133 Complaint pelled by boycotts and threats of boycott and other unlawful means to store sui~ residuum in the custody of some one of the member respondents until such residuum has been purchased and absorbed by the member respondents in the due course of their businesses. In consequence of such action on the part of respondent 'Wholesalers' Association and of the member respondents, such manufacturers were obliged to and did actually discontinue selling their said products to such wholesalers who were not members of respondent Wholesalers' Association when and although said non-member wholesalers were ready, willing, and able to purchase said products. In the course and conduct of the business and activities of the respondent American 'Vholesale Grocery Company and in furtherance of the concerted action and conspiracy above stated of all the respondents, said respondent threatened to boycott a certain manu- ' facturer by refusal to continue handling its product if said manufacturer delivered to a public warehouse in Fall River the unsold residuum of its shipment in pooled cars.

In the course and conduct of the business and activities of respondent 'Vholesalers' Association and of the concerted action and conspiracy above stated of all the respondents, the member respondents in their status as members of the 'Vlwlesalers' Association frequently held and hold general and special meetings for the interchange of information concerning the furtherance of their efforts to prevent and restrain sales by manufacturers to retailers and to wholesalers who are not members of the respondent 'Vlwlesalers' Association, concerning any sales of such character that are made by manufacturers, and concerning the action necessary to be taken to prevent and restrain further sales of such character and to effectuate their policy of preventing and restraining such transactions; and thereupon all of said respondents have conce1ted and agreed and do concert and agree upon a course of common action to that end, consisting of bringing pressure to bear upon any such manufacturer to cease making such sales and of attempting by personal intimidation, threats of boycott and actual boycott to coerce such manufacturer to refrain thereafter from making any such sales and from supplying retail dealers with such products direct and from supplying wholesale dealers wl\o are not ml:'mbers of the 'Vholesalers' Association with such products out of pooletl car shipments. Respondents used and use other concerted and coercive means to effectuate their said conspiracy to restrnin and prennt such sales.

In the course and conduct of the business and activities of the respondent 'Vholesalers' Association and of the concerted action and conspiracy above stated of all the respondents, an agrel:'ment wa:i 138 FEDERAL TRADE COl\Il\IISSION DECISIONS Complaint 2!F. T. C.

reached between respondent 'Wholesalers' Association and the association of retail grocers in the Fall River region looking to the prevention and restraint of purchases by retailers direct from manufacturers, and the respondent ·wholesalers' Association threatened to suspend or expel any member refusing to sign and subscribe to such agreement.

In the course and conduct of the business and activities of respondent Wholesalers' Association and of the concerted action and conspiracy above stated of all the respond.ents, respondent 'Vholesalers' Association actually placed upon its "unfair list" for boycott a particular manufacturer who had not conformed to the demands and requirements of the respondent Wholesalers' Association above alleged and obliged. all of its members to cease handling the products of said manufacturer on penalty of forfeiture of deposits of said members held by respondent 'Vholesalers' Association as a guaranty of their conformity to its requirements, and said manufacturer was notified by said respondent 'Vholesalers' Association that it had been placed on said respondent's "unfair list" and that Association members would discontinue handling the merchandise of said manufacturer "because of unfair and unethical business methods" and respondent Wholesalers' Association also at the same time voted that similar action would be taken in respect of certain other manufacturers if said manufacturers did not cease selling their products direct to retailers. Solely in consequence of such action of respondent Wholesalers' Association, the manufacturer first above referred to discontinued selling its products direct to large retailers in the Fall River region and continued under such restraint for a considerable period of time. Solely in consequence of such action by respondent Wholesalers' Association all of the member respondents except the New England Wholesale Grocery Company ceased making purchases from one of the other manufacturers above referred to. PAR. 3. The above alleged acts and things done by respondents, including specifically among them the blacklisting and boycotting of manufacturers, the threatening of boycott and the conspiracy to do those acts and things, have tended and do tend and will continue to tend unduly and unreasonably to restrain trade and commerce between and among the several States of the United States, in that they have tended nnd do tend to close certain of the outlets within the States of Massachusetts and Rhode Island for the direct and immediate sale by manufacturers and producers in other States of products shipped by them into said State of Massachusetts, to deprive manufacturers and producers in other States of the right and opportunity freely to trade with and make sales to nll wholesalers and FALL RIVER WHOLESALE GROCERS' ASS'N ET AL.. 139 133 Complaint retailers and prospective purchasers in said State of Massachusetts and to deprive certain wholesalers and retailers and prospective purchasers in said State of Massachusetts of the right and opportunity freely to trade with and make purchases and obtain shipments from manufacturers and producers in other States, and to deprive such last mentioned wholesalers and retailers and prospective purchasers in said State of Massachusetts of the right and opportunity and advantage secured and exercised and enjoyed by respondents in respect of the lower freight rates and incidental expenses on shipments from manufacturers in other States in carload lots or pooled cars and thereby depriving such last mentioned wholesalers and retailers in the State of Massachusetts from passing on to the purchasing and -consuming pubtic in said Fall River region the advantages and savings of such lower freight rates and incidental expenses and other competitive benefits flowing from such lower freight rates; and have also tended and do tend by such limitation and restriction of the total number of wholesalers and retailers in the Fall River region securing and exercising and enjoying such advantage of lower freight rates to limit and restrict the benefits to said purchasing and consuming public flowing therefrom. Such acts and things substantially and unduly and unreasonably lessen, restrain, and suppress free and open -competition in the sale and distribution in interstate commerce of said food and grocery products in the said Fall River region, obstruct the free and natural flow of interstate commerce in said region and deny to consumers of said products in said Fall River region the advantages in price and otherwise which they would obtain from the free and natural flow of commerce in said products under conditions of free and unobstructed competition. Consequently said acts have been and are and will continue to be to the prejudice and injury of the public and of the competitors of respondents and of the manufacturers and producers both those who do and particularly those who do not, comply with and adhere to the limitations of trade and commerce imposed by the respon~ents above mentioned. PAR. 4. There were and are among the competitors of respondent in the said Fall River region other wholesalers who are not members ()f respondent Wholesalers' Association who would freely purchase from manufacturers in other states similar and substantially identical }lroducts to the products hereinabo,·e mentioned<l as being purchased by respondents, as well as retailers who woul<l also freely make such purchases, and to which suitl other wholesalers an<l said retailers said manufacturers would freely sell such similar and substantially identical products and to whom said manufacturers would freely make :;hipments in pooled cars as had b£'en an<l are ma<le to the member Findings 24F. T. C.

respondents, were it not for the aforesaid acts and restraints of respondents above mentioned. Such acts and things done by respondents substantially and unduly and unreasonably lessen, restrain and suppress free and open competition in the sale and distribution in interstate commerce of said food and grocery products in said Fall River recrion obstruct the free and natural flow of interstate com- "' ' .merce in said region and deny to said other wholesalers, to said retailers and to the public in said Fall River region the advantages in price and otherwise which they would obtain from the free and natural flow of commerce in said products under conditions of free and unobstructed competition and have diverted and do divert and have tended and do tend to divert business from said other wholesalers. Consequently said acts have been and are and will continue to be to the prejudice and injury of said competitors of respondents. The member respondents would also, except for the acts a.nd things done by them in pursuance of their concerted action and agreements and conspiracy as hereinabove stated, be naturally and normally in competition with each other in price and otherwise; ttnd consequently said acts have been and are and will continue to be to the prejudice and injury of said member respondents as competitors each with the others.

PAn. 5. The above acts and things done and caused to be done by the respondents were and are each and all to the prejudice of the public and of respondents' competitors and constitute unfair methods of competition in commerce within the meaning and intent of Section 5 of an Act of Congress entitled "An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes," approved September 26, 1914.

Rerort, FINDINGS AS To THE FACTs, AND Onnm Pursuant to the provisions of an Act of Congress appro\'ed September 2G, 1914, entitled "An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its po~Ye:s and duties, and for other purposes," the Federal Trade Commission on January 4, 19:3G, issued and serwd its complaint in this proceeding upon the respowlents, Fall River 'Vholesale Grocers' Assn. et al., charging them with the use of unfair methods of competition in commerce in violation of the provisions of said act. After the issuance of said complaint and the filing' of respondents' answer, the Commission, by order entered herein gra~ted respondents' motion for permission to withdraw said answer and to substitute therefor an answer admitting all the material all('O'ations of the complaint to be true with certain reservation stated the~ein to wit: the respondents would not admit that they interfered with 'the FALL RIVER WHOLESALE GROCERS' ASS'N ET AL. 141 133 Findings sources of supply of wholesale grocers as alleged in the complaint, and waiving the taking of further evidence and all other intervening procedure, which substitute answer was duly filed in the office of the Commission.

Thereafter, this proceeding regularly came on :for final hearing before the Commission on the said complaint and the substitute answer, briefs and oral arguments of counsel having been waived, and the Commission having duly considered the same and being now fully advised in the premises, finds that this proceeding is in the interest of the public and makes this its findings as to the facts and its conclusion drawn therefrom:

FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent, Fall River 'Vholesale Grocers' Association, is a voluntary association with its principal place of business located at Fall River, Mass. Said respondent association membership consists of the following respondent corporations, copartnerships, and individuals:

Allen Slade and Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts;

American 'Vholesale Grocery Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Chabot Brothers, a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts;

Fall River Economy Wholesale Gr«;>cery Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Fall River Paper and Supply Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Jos£>ph Horvitz, an individual trading under the name and style of Joseph Horvitz and Company;

Abraham I. Yamins and Samuel Levin, copartners trading under the firm name and style of New England 'Vholesale Grocery Company;

Portuguez 'Vholesale Grocery Company, a corporation organized undt>r the laws of the 'Commomwalth of Massachusetts; Philip J. Roy, an individual trading under the name and style of Uoy Paper Company.

Each of the above named corporations, copartnerships, and individuals have been engaged for some time past, ns wholesalers in groceries and in the sale and distribution of said products in the region of the city of Fall River, State of Massachusetts. Said Fall Uin'r region comprises not only said city of Fall River, but also the trade area contiguous to it in the State of Massachusetts, and also in J4{)j;jll 011 3!1-\"01. 24-12 Findings 24F.T. C the State of Rhode Island. Said member respondents purchase said groceries sold and distributed by them in the said Fall River region from manufacturers and producers in other States than the State of Massachusetts, and which products so purchased are shipped from such other States into the State of Massachusetts to said member respondents, and are then sold and distributed by each of said member respondents to retailers in the States of Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

In the course and conduct of their respective businesses, said corporations, copartnerships, and individuals were and are in competition with other corporations, copartnerships, and individuals, who are not members of respondent '\Vholesalers Associations, but who were likewise engaged in the sale and distribution in interstate commerce of similar products in competition with such members. The respondent "\Vholesalers Association and its members as a result of ap;re<>ments, express or implied, have acted in concert and conspiracy between and among themselves for the advancement of their common interests and private purposes. PAR. 2. In the course and conduct of the business and activities of respondent '\Vholesalers Association and of the concerted action and conspiracy above stated of all the rcspowlcnts, and at various times during the past three y£'ars, respon(lent '\Vholrsalers Associ:~.­ tion in behalf of itself and of each and all of said member respondents, and in pmsuance of a policy agreed upon and adopted(l by said member respondents of refusing to d£'al with manufacturers of grocery products who have sold or sell such products to retailers thereof in the said Full River region, informed various such manufacturers of the policy of the responllent association and its members that they should not distribute said grocery products to retailers of such products and threatened that such members would and they did refuse to purchase from manufacturers who failed or refuseJ. to comply with their wishes in that respect. Uesponclt>nt association and its members by the use of such unlawful threats and boycotts have restrained and prevented sales and distributions in the said Fall River r£>gion Ly such manufacturers to rPtailC'rs of such products. Carrying out such policy, sai(l as'iociation wrote to a large manufactur£'r of milk prollucts that surplus e\'apomted milk shippNl in pool cars must not be !l£'1irered Ly it to a public warC'lwuse and that, if this W<'re !loew, its m£>mbers would refuse to d£'al furthrr in its protluets. The company addr£'s~cd, in ordcr to l'U\'e itsrlf from loss of Lusin£'ss, was oblige(! to and ditl discontinue sdling its proLlncts to two comJwtitors of saitl nwmbl'rs of sai(l l"<'~'pondt>nt '\Vlwlesnl('rs Association, anll to warehouse surplus milk with a member tlwr£'of. FALL RIVER WHOLESALE GROCERS' ASS'N ET AL. 143 133 Conclusion On February 27t 1935, at a meeting of said respondent 'Vholesalers Association, the manufacturer referred to was placed on the association's unfair list on account of its selling to large retailers in the Fall River region and all members of the association were warned to cease handling said company's products on penalty of forfeiting their deposits made with said association for the purpose of securing their compliance with its rules. The association also informed the manufacturer of this action, and that its members would no longer be allowed to do any business with it. Said manufacturer was thereupon obliged to discontinue selling its products to several large retailers, who were competitors of the association's members, and said manufacturer requested that its name be removed from the association's unfair list. On May 2G, 193G, the association issued and distributed a letter announcing that its members had "decided definitely to cooperate only with those producers, packers, or manufacturers who will confine themselves to selling their merchandise to wholesale grocers," and asked for replies showing whether the concerns so uddressed would or would not cooperate in the matter. In the course of the activities of the respondents as above stated, an agreement was rl.'nched between respondent "\Vholesalers Association and the Association of Retail Grocers in the Fall River region working to the prevention and restraint of purchases by retailers direct from manufacturers, and the respondent "\Vholesalers Association threatened to suspend any member refusing to sign and subscribe to ~uch agreement.

At different times, similar course of action was taken against large manufacturers of sugar and of coffee with the result that manufacturers were coerced into refusing to sell their products direct to retailers, whereby interstate commerce in groceries was unduly restrained and hindered.

PAn. 3. The results of the acts of the said respondents, as herein before st•t out in purngruph 2, have bet>n to unduly tend to substantially lessen, restrict, und suppress competition in the interstate sale of grocery prouucts particularly in the above dt>scribed Fall Uiver r£>gion.

COXCLUSION The aforesaid acts and practices of the respondents, Fall Uiver Wholesale Grocers' Assn. et al., are to the prejudice of the public 11nd of respondents' compt'titors, and constitute unfair methods of competition in comnH•rc(', within the intent and meaning of Section 5 of an Act of Congrt>ss, approw1l September 2G, 1914, entitled "An Act to cr('ate a Federal Trade Commission, to d('fine its powers and duties, anti for other purposes." · Order 24F.T.C.

ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST This proceeding having been heard by the Federal Trade Commission upon the complaint of the Commission and the answer filed herein on November 10, 1936, by respondents admitting all the material allegations of the complaint to be true with a certain r!'s!'rvation stated therein, to wit: the respondents would not admit that they interfered with the sources of supply of wholesale grocers as alleged in the complaint, and waiving the taking of further evidence and all other int!'rvening procedure, and the Commission having made its findings as to the facts and its conclusion that said respondents have violated the provisions of an Act of Congress approved September 26, Hll4, entitled "An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes." It is ordered, That the respondents, Fall River Wholesale Grocers' Assn. and Allen Slade & Company, American 'Vlwlesale Grocery Co., Chabot Brothers, Fall River Economy Wholesale Grocery Co., Fall River Paper & Supply Co., Joseph Horvitz and Company, New England 'Vlwlesale Grocery Company, Portuguez 'Vlwlesale Grocery Company, and Roy Paper Company, their office('rs, reprl'sentatives, agents, and.employees, in connection with the offering for sale, sale and distribution of grocery products in interstate commerce or in the District of Columbia, do forthwith cease and desist from: (1) Adopting, enforcing or attempting to put into effect any understanding, agreement, combination, or conspiracy among nn<l between themselves to restrict, restrain, suppress, and eliminate competition in the sale and distribution of grocery products in interstate commerce, by interfering with the source of supply of retailers; (2) Persuading, threatening or coercing manufacturers to distribute their products only through wholesalers, and to cease and refrain from dealing with retailers;

(3) Any other similar means or methods of coercing manufacturers into distributing their products through wholesalers exclusively.

It i8 further ordered, That within GO days from the date of the service of this order upon said respondents that they file with the Commission a report in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which this oruer has been complied with. GALION METALLIC VAULT COMPANY 145 Syllabus