Clinton Comp.Any and Clinton Sales Comp Any

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

IN THE MATTER OF CLINTON COMP.ANY AND CLINTON SALES CO:MP ANY COMPLAINT, FINDI~GS, AND ORDER IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 (a) OF AN ACT OF CO:XGRES::l APPROVED OCT, 15, 1914, AS AMENDED BY ACT OF JUNE 19, 1936 Docket 3800. Complaint, June 1. 1!13fl-1Jccision, Mar. 17, 19.~:! \Vhpre a corporation, with pt·indpul place of bm:iness in Iowa, wbet·e it ltud a corn grinding plant wltli capacity in excess of 32,000 bushels a day and complete facilities for the prollnction of all known corn products, both for household and industrial use; including starch for food and other purposes, glucose or corn syrup, and corn sugar, and, as by-products, gluten feed,· coru oil, corn oil cake aud corn oil meal; and its wholly owned subsidiary, with principal office at Chien go; together long engaged iu manufacture, sale and distribution of said com products, and, In addition, various bramled products- In selling their glucose or corn syrup, us(o'd in mo>1t kinds of cundy, and constituting from 50 to !l() pet·cent of the finished weights of many vat·ieties, largely to manufacturers of candies and mixers of table syrups- (a) Discriminated In pri('e unlawfully through sule.; of giU('Oo;e of like grade and quality, fnlfilled by shipments from their Iowa plant to purchasers in various cities, at differing tleli"ered prices, through a pricing system based upon their Chicago tank car price, to which was atlded as differentials the amounts of the railroad ta r·itr from Cliieago to destinations; (b) Discriminated in price unlawfully between diffprent purchasers through ndding to their base railroad tank car price, certain "container tlilferpJItials'' which' Yaried ft·om ten cents, whet·e tleliverr was by tank trucks owned by such ('OrporntionF:, to $1.08 for 5-gallon cnns; n11d (c) Discriminated ill pricp between different purchasers through pref(o'rentlal operation Ol' application of their booking l:!)'Stem-nuder which, following announcement of new price incn'Hse, purchasers were granted a period of five days within which to pnrdms(o' at the old and lowest· l)lice, provided shipment was made within 30 days-through making shipnwnts at times to various purchasers, aftt'l' expiration of 30-dny 11eJ·iod, at the older a•td lower price, while concurrently chnrgiug othet• and competing purchasers who ordered after expiration of the 5-duy period, the new and higher prices, and through accepting, upon one occasion, an order for glucose at the old and lower pt·ice, while <'oncurrently selling the same product to competing purchasers at the new and higher price; With~ the result that- (1) Cundy manufacturers loeat(o'd h1 cities otiwr than Chicago had higher raw material and total costs than did Chicago manufacturers: and manufacturers nf low-pric·(o'd candies R(o'lling at a narrow ma1·gin of profit-In which the cost of glucm;e Is a major portion of the total manufacturing costs, and in the case of which cllllln stores and other Iurl:"e quantity purchasers are llttt·acted b~· a difference as little as one-eighth of a cent per pound-could only s(o'll their product at competitive pt·lces by absorbing the higher glucose costs OJ' by selling on a non·PI'Ice btsis, with 880 0 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Complaint 34F.T. C.

consequence, in either event, that manufacturer's profit was reduc1~d directly tli,rough such absorption or indirectly through reduced sales volume and resulting Increased overhead unit costs, and some who otherwise would have entered upon manufacture of candy in cities where glucose prices were higher were 'deterred from so doing; and (2) Customer-purchasers engaged in mixing, for sale to wholesalers and other distributors, table sirup, In which approximately 85 percent of content Is glucose, and located in cities other than Chicago, had higher raw material and total costs than Chicago mixers; sales of those who sell their product at but a few cents per case lower than a competitor were substantially diminished or prevented by reason of the lower glucose cost to Chicago mixers; and sales and profits of mixed1·s paying the higher prices were less than they otherwise would have been; and potential new mixers were deterred from entering the Industry in those cities In which corporations in question sold their corn sirup at such higher prices: Held, That such discriminations in price resulted In substantial Injury to competition among purchasers of glucose by affording material and unjustified price advantages to some and not to others, and constituted violation of Subsection (a) of section 2 of the Clayton .Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman .Act.

Before Mr. John L. Hornor, trial examiner.

Mr. Frank Hier and M1·. P.R. Layton for the Commission. Lowenhaupt, lV aite & Stolar, of St. Louis, Mo., for respondents. Co:r.rPLAINT The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that theparties respondent named in the caption hereof, and hereinafter more particularly designated and described, since June 19, 1936, have violated and are now violating the provisions of Section 2 of the Clayton Act as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, approved June 19, 1936 (U. S. C., title 15, sec. 13), hereby issues its complaint, stating its charges with respect thereto as follows: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent, Clinton Co., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Iowa with its principal office and place of business in the city of Clinton and State of Iowa. Respondent, Clinton Sales Co., is a corporation organized under thelaws of the State of Illinois and has its principal office and place of business at 1525 South Sangamon Street in the city of Chicago, State of Illinois. Respondent, Clinton Sales Co., is a wholly owned sales subsidiary of respondl.'nt Clinton Co., through which products manufactured by Clinton Co. are sold and distributed. Clinton Co. owns the entire capital stock of Clinton Sales Co., and controls and nirects Clinton Sales Co.

r AR. 2. Respondent, Clinton Co., owns and operates It plant at Clinton, Iowa. This plant has a corn grinding capacity in excess of CLINTON CO. ET AL. 881 I Si9 Complaint 32,000 bushels per day, with complete facilities for the finished fabrication of all known corn products, both for household and industrial use.

PAR. 3. For many years respondents have been nnd are now engaged in the business of manufacturing1 selling and distributing in interstate commerce products derived from corn. The principal products derived from corn are {1) Starch, both for food and other purposes; (2) Glucose or corn syrup; and (3) Corn sugar. Starch is first manufactured from the corn, and glucose and grape sugar are made by treating the starch with certain acids, the resulting solid product being sugar and the resulting syrup being glucose. Glucose is largely used in the manufacture of candy, jellies, jams, preserves, and the like as well as in the mixing of syrups. The principal byproducts of corn resulting in the corn products business are gluten feed, corn oil, corn-oil cake and corn-oil meal. The Clinton Co., in addition to bulk produc-ts, produces branded products.

PAR. 4. For many years in the course and conduct of their business, the respondents have been and are now manufacturing the aforesaid commodities at the aforesaid plant and have sold and shipped and do now sell and ship such commodities in commerce between and among the various States of the United States from the State in which their factory is located across State lines to purchasers thereof located in States other than the State in which respondents' said plant is located in competition with other persons, firms, and corporations engaged in similiar lines of commerce. PAR. 5. Since June 19, 193G, and while engaged as aforesaid in commerce among the several States of the United States and the District of Columbia, the respondents have been and are now, in the course of such commerce, discriminating in price between purchasers of said commodities of like grade and quality, which commodities are sold for use, consumption or resale within the several States of the United States and the District of Columbia in that the respondents have been and are now selling such commodities to some purchasers at a higher price than the price at which commodities of like grade and quality are sold by respondents to other purchasers generally competitively engaged with the first mentioned purchasers. PAR. 6. The eflect of said ·discriminations in price made by said tespondents, as set forth in paragraph 5 herein, may be substantially to lessen competition in the sale and distribution of corn products between the said respondents and their competitors; tend to create a monopoly in the line of commerce in which the respotHlents are en- 4665otJm-42-vol. 34-M Findings 34F. T. C.

gaged; and to injure, destroy, and prevent competition in the sale and distribution of corn products between the said respondents and their competitor"S.

PAR. 7. The effect of said discriminations in price made by said respondents, as Sft forth in paragraph 5 herein, may be substantially to lessen competition between the buyers of said corn products from respondents receiving said lower discriminatory prices and other buyers from respondents competitively engaged with such favored buyers who do not receive such favorable prices; tend to create a monopoly in the lines of commerce in which buyers from respondents are engaged; and to injure, destroy, and prevent competition in the lines of commerce in which those who purchase from respondents are engaged between the said beneficiaries of said discriminatory prices and said buyers who do not and have not received such beneficial • pnces.

PAR. 8. The aforesaid acts of respondents constitute a violation of the provisions of subsection (a) of section 2 of the Clayton Act as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, approved June 19, 1936 (U.S. C. title 15, sec. 13).

UEPORT, FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS, AND ORDER Pursuant to the provisions of an act of Congress entitled "An act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraint,:; and monopolies, and for other purposes," approved October 15. 1914 (Clayton Act), as amended by act approved June 19, 1936 (Robinson-Patman Act), the Fed~ral Trade Commission on June 1, 1939, issued and subsequently served its complaint in this proceeding upon respondents Clinton Co., a corporation, and Clinton Sales Co., a corporation, charging them with discrimination in price among purchasers of their products in violation of subsection (a) of section 2 of said act, as amended.

After the issuance of said complaint and the filing of respondents' answer thereto, certain stipulated facts were read into the record~ and exhibits introduced before an examiner of the Commi>"sion theretofore duly designated by it, and such evidence wa,;; duly recorded and filed in the office of the Commission. Thereafter this proceeding regularly came on for final hearing before the Commissi.on on the complaint, answer, evidence, briefs in support of the complaint and in opposition thereto, and oul arguments of couns<>l; 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 CLINTON CO. ET AL. 883 870 Findings public and makes this its findings as to the facts and its conclusion drawn therefrom:

FINDINGS .AS TO THE FACTS PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Clinton Co. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Iowa, having its principal office and place of business in Clinton, I~wa. Clinton Sales Co. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois, having its principal office and place of business at Chicago, Ill. Clinton Sales Co. is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Clinton Co. and is engaged in the sale and distributior. of the products manufactured by the Clinton Co.

PAR. 2. For many years respondents have been, ancl are now, engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, and distributing products derived from corn. They have a plant at Clinton, Iowa, which has a corn grinding capacity in excess o£ 32,000 bushels per day and complete facilities for the production of all known corn produ-:Jts both for household and industrial use. The principal products so made are starch, both for food and otht>r purposes, glucose or corn syrup, and corn sugar. Glucose is largely used in the manufacture of candy, jellies, jams, preserves, and in the m:xing of syrups. The principal byproducts resulting from such processing of corn are gluten feed, corn oil, corn oil cake, and corn oil meal. In addition to the products sold by res_pondents in bulk, they also produce and sell various branded products.

PAR. 3. In the course and conduct o£ their business as aforesaid respondents have been, and are now, selling and shipping such commodities in commerce between and among the various States of the United States from the State in whl.ch their plant is located across State lint:>s to purchasers thereof located in other States, and maintain, and have maintained, a course of trade in commerce among and between the various States of the United States. PAR. 4. (a) Respondents sell glucose or corn syrup largely to manufacturers of candy and mixers of table syrups on a delivered price basis, the price in each instance depending upon the location of the purchaser freightwise to Chicago, Ill. Respm1dents' railroad tank car price in Chicago is the bare from which its prices to pqrchasers at all other locations are determined, and such other prices are arrived at by adding to the Chicu~o tank car price the amount of the railroad tariff from Chicago to the purchaser's location. This pricing plan has been followed by respondents since the establishment of their plant at Clinton, Iowa, in 1906, and similar pricing Findings 34F.T. c:

plans have been, and are being, used by respondents' competitors. These competitors and the plant locations of each are: Corn Products Refining Co., with plants at Chicago, Ill., and Kansas City, Mo.; A. E. Staley Manufacturing Co., Decatur, Ill.; Penick & Ford, .Ltd., Inc., Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Anheuser-Busch, Inc., St. Louis, Mo.; Union Starch and Refining Co., Granite City, Ill.: American Maize- Products Co., Roby, Ind.; and Hubinger Co., Keokuk. Iowa. (b) In order to illustrate respondents' pricing system to customers in various cities of the United States, their prices per hundred pounds for 43° glucose in railroad tank car lots to customers in a few of such cities on parti~ular dates were:

Location of purchaser AUI!.l,1936 Au~.1937 I. Aug.1938I, AUI~.I.1939 Chicago, Ill $2.94 ~3.04 $2.29 $2.0~ Clinton, Iowa . . 3.11 a. 20 2.47 2.27 Duhuqne. Iowa . . 3.11 3. 20 2.47 2.27 Marshalltown, Iowa . . 3. 23 3.31 2. 69 2.39 Sioux City, Iowa .•. ~ •• 3. 32 3.40 2.611 2. 49 Sioux Falls. S.Dak . 3.33 s. 41 2. 70 2. 50 Fort Worth, Tex •.. a. 72 3. 77 3.09 2.811 Dallas, '!'ex •.... . 3. 72 3. 77 3.011 2.811 Kansa.q City, Mo .••. .••. 3.32· 3.40 2.r.9 2. 49 St. Lou!~, Mo .......••. 3.11 3. 20 2. 47 2.27 Salt Lake City, Utah 3. 79 3. 74 3.06 2.Ae Ogden. Utah ......................................... .. 3. 711 3. 74 8.06 2.86 Lincoln, Nebr .••... 3.37 3.45 2. 74 2.M Oklahoma City, Okla . . 3.62 3.68 2.99 2. 79 At all times between the dates set forth subst.a.ntially the same differences in and relationships between and among said prices illustrated above existed as to purchasers so located.

(c) The railroad tariff stated in cents per hundred pounds of glucase from Chicago, Ill., to each of the cities shown in the table above for the periods shown was:

June 19, Jan.1, Apr. 20, De~. 20, Mar. 28, Aug. 13, 1936, 11137, 1Y37, 1037, 1938, 1938, Cities throu~b through through through through thrOUJ~h Dec. 31, Apr. Ill, Dec. 19, Mflr. 27, Aug.14, 1Y36 1937 1937 1938 1938 Clinton, Iowa ............... . 17 16 16 17~ 17~ 18Dubuque, Iowa ........... . 17 16 16 m_, 17~ 18Marshalltown, Iowa ........ . 29~ 27~ 27~ 30~ 30 30 Sioux City, Iowa ......... . 38 36 36 39 40 40 Sioqx Falls, S. Dak. • - -· 311 37 37 40 41 41 Fore Worth, Tex .......... .. 78 73 73 M 80 so l>Rllas, Tex . •• • ••.• 78 73 73 80 80 80 KBIIS!\8 City, Mo ........ . 3S 36 36 3Y 40 4U St. Louis, Mo .... •.• • 17 16 16 17~ • 17~ 18 Llnroln, Nehr • .. . • . .. 43 41 41 44 45 45 Oklahoma City, Okla. .. .. lis 64 64 70 70 70 Salt Lake City, Utah ........ . &5 80 70 73 77 77 Ogden, Utah .............. .. {;5 80 70 73 77 ·, 1T CLINTON CO. ET AL. 885 879 Findings (d) All sales of glucose inade by respondents are fulfilled by shipments made from their plant at Clinton, Iowa, and the railroad tariff stated in cents per hundred pounds applicable to such shipments from Clinton, Iowa, to the above-named cities were as follow.s for the periods shown :

June 19, Jan. 1, Apr. 20, Dec. 20, 1936. 1937. 1937, 1937, Aug. 15, Cities through throul!h through through 1938, Dec. 31, Apr. 19, Dec. 19, Aug. 14, through 1936 1937. 1937 1938 12 12 12 11 I1 cie~~o·w·a 17 16 16 17).1 18 ~ ~ :~: :::::: ~: ::::::::::: 19~ 17~~ 19).1 17).1Marshalltown, Iowa ....................... IQ}Ii Siou• City, Iowa .......................... 31 28 28 31 31 Sioux Falls. S. Dak ........................ 32)1 2911 29)1 32)1 32~ Fort Worth, Tei ................. , ........ 73 70 70 77 77 ))ullss,.Tex ................................ 73 70 70 77 77 Kansas City, lVJ;o .......................... 31 28 28 31 31 St. Louis, Mo ....................... J ..... 1711 16 16 1711 18 Lincoln, Nebr ............................. 36 33 33 36 36 Oklahoma City, Okla ..................... 64 61 61 67 67 Salt Lake C'lty, Utah ...................... 85 80 6511 &Yo 72Ogden, Utah .............................. 85 so 6511 &>Yo 72 From a comparison of the price differences as among customers in <Efferent cities with the applicable railroad rates it is evident that the price differences created by respondents' pricing system do not reflect actual differences in delivery costs to respondents. Milling in transit and other rate adjustments would not operate to cause respondents' actual delivery costs to coincide with such price differences. PAR. 5. As a part of their pricing plan to purchasers of glucose or corn syrup, respondents follow the practice of granting to purehasers a period of 5 days after the announcement of any price increase by them within which purchasers may buy at the price -which was in effect before the increase, provided shipment of glucose so ordered be made within 30 days after the date of the price increase. Upon orders entered within such 5-day period respondents at times have shipped glucose to various purchasers after the expiration of the 30-day period, charging and receiving therefor the older and lower price, while at the same time charging and receiving the new increased and higher prices for si.milar glucose from other and competing purchasers who ordered after the expiration of the 5-day period. Upon one occasion respo111lents accepted an onler for glucose at the old and lower price after the 5-day period had expired, and sold glucose to such purchaser at the old and lower price while concurrently selling glucose of like grade and quality to other and rompeting purchasers at the new nn<l higher price. 'Vhen respond- Findings 34F. T.C.

ents accepted said onler the purchaser stated that competitors of respondents were offering to sell su~il glucose to him at such lower price, but respondents did not. attempt to determine whether such statement was true.

PAR. 6. In addition to the price differences among their customer-rs created by respondents through the method of basing all delivered prices upon the Chicago price, and price differences created by reason of preferential treatment given some customers in the operatipn of the order booking systrm used, respondents crrate further price differences among their customers by nwans of "container differentials." Respondents sell corn syrup or glucose in railroad tank car lots, in tank truck or tank wagon quantities, in steel drums, barrels, half barrels, 10-gallon <'ans, and 5-gallon cans. Respondents' base price for glucose is in tank car quantities, and in the event a purchaser takes delivf:'ry in a smaller quantity or smaller containers the price to him is increased above the tank car price as shown in the following table:

• Additional price per hundredteelght over tank car Type of container: 11rice Bat't'Pls _______________ $0.33 Half barrels ---------- $0.!'i8 10-gallon cans _______ $0.98 5-gallon cans __________ $1.08 Returnable steel drums_ $0.13 where thel·e Is no rewm freight paid on empty drums.

Returnable steel drums_ $0.18 where the return freight on the empty drum Is 75 cents or less per hundredweight Returnable steel drums_ $0.23 where the return freight on the empty drum Is between 76 and 90 cents per hundredweight. Returnable steel drums_ $0.28 where the return freight ou the empty tlrum Is between 91 cents and $1 per hundrpdwelght. Returnable steel drums_ $0.33 where the return ft·eight on the empty drutn Is more than $1 per hundredweight.

Tank tru('ks ---------- $010 where delivet'ed hy respomlentl'l' equipment. PAR. 7. (a) Some of the customers who purchase glucose of like grade and quality from respondents are candy manufacturers located in the cities hrretofore named. These manufacturers use the glucose so purchased in the manufacture of cnn<ly which is sold in competition with can1ly manufacturrJ by others to various customers such as whole':-alers, retnilC'rs, aw.l chain stores, who purchase for resale. Gluco:"e is W;f:'d to some extent in the manufacture of most kintls of candy and is one of the major raw materials used in the production of many varieties, constituting ft·om 5 to 90 percent of the finished weight thereof. The cost of gluco~e is a substantial part of the raw material co~t llnd of the total co,.t of manufacturing many CLINTON CO. E.T AL. 887 879 Fintlings candies and is a major portion of the raw material and total cost of manufacturing candies which have a high glucose content. The higher prices paid for glucose by candy manufacturers located in cities other than Chicago, Ill., such as those previously enumerated, contribute to a greater or lesser degree to thpir having higher raw material and total costs than those manufacturers located in Chicago, Ill., the degree in each instance depending upon the difference in price and the proportion of glucose used in the candy manufactured. Generally, glucose is used in greater proportion in candies which are sold at but a few cents per pound and at a narrow margin of profit. As to low-priced candies which have no differentiating name or brand, candy manufacturers may, and do, att.ract customers by ~selling such candies at as little as one-eighth cent per pound lower than competitors, and this is ei<pecially true in selling candies to chain stores and other large quantity purchasers to whom such a small difference in price is determinative in the placing of their business. Under such circumstances, candy manufacturers paying higher prices for glucose can only sell candies at competitive prices by absorbing the higher glucose costs or by increasing the price of such candies and selling them on a nonprice basis. The result in either case. is to reduce the manufacturer's profit either directly through such absorption or indirectly through reduced sales volume of high glucose content candies at higher than competitive prices, and in the latte.r alternative reduced sales volume usually re~nlts in incre..<tised overhead unit costs. The lower profits or any of the other results ·stated above to candy manufacturers paying higher prices for glucose diminish{!s their incentive and ability to compete with those candy manufacturers paying lower prices for glucose and deters some who otherwise would enter the manufacture of candy in those cities where respondents' glucose prices are higher. (b) Some customers who purchase glucose from respondents are located in the cities previously named and are engaged in the business of mixing or preparing sirup for table use for sale to wholesalers and other food product distributors. Such table sirups contain approximately 85 percent of glucose or corn sirup. A typical and usual method of packaging and selling such mixed table sirup is in cases containing six 10-pound cans or twelve 5-pound cans, or GO pounds net of table sirup, of which approximately 50 pounds is glucose or corn sirup sold by respondents. The higher prices paid for such glucose by table sirup mixers located in cities other than Chicago, Ill., conti·ibutes in greater or lesser degree to their having higher raw material and total costs than the comparable costs of table sirup Conclusion 34F.T.C.

mi!:ers located in Chicago, Ill., the degree m each case depending upon the difference in price paid for glucose. Table sirup mixers may, and do, attract customers by selling table sirup at but a few cents per case lower than the price at· which a competitor is selling. The lower cost of glucose to table sirup mixers located in Chicago, Ill., when reflected in the selli.ng price of such table sirup, substantially diminishes or prevents sales of such table sirup by mixers located in cities other than Chicago, Ill.~ to customers in areas where, and to the extent that, transportation costs on such mixed table sirup from Chicago, Ill., to such areas is less than the amount of the difference in the price or cost of glucose to such mixers, or is "less than such price difference plus transportation costs from such other cities to such areas. If the table sirup mixers paying the higher prices for glucose were paying lower prices they could, and would, sell table sirup mixed by them to customers located in areas where they cannot now se 11 to the extent and degree that they would be able to reduce their delivered prices because of lower glucose prices. Under such circumstances the sales and profits of table sirup mixers paying the higher prices for glucose have been less than they would have been, or would be, if the price of such glucose were lower; and such lessening or lowering of sales and profits has diminished their incentive to compete with table sirup mixers paying lower prices for glucose, and has deterred potential new mixers of table sirup from entering the industry in those cities where respondents sell their corn sirup at such higher prices.

PAR. 8. Respondents have introduced no evidence to show that the aforesaid price differentials, or any of them, as among their customers, made only due allowance for differences in the cost of manufacture, sale, or delivery, if any, resulting from differing methods or quantities, if any, in which glucose was to such purchasers sold or delivered.

CONCLUSION The discriminations in price by respondents, as hereinabove set forth, have resulted, and do result, in substantial injury to competition among purchasl'rs of glucose by atrording material and unjustified price advantages to some purchasers and not to others, and violate subsection (a) of section 2 of an act of Congress entitled "An act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other purposes," approved October 15, 1914 {Clayton Act), as amended by the act of June 19, 1936 (Robinson- Patman Act).

CLINTON CO. ET AL. 889 879 Order ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST This proceeding having been heard by the Federal Trade Commission upon the complaint of the Commission, respondents' answer thereto, certain stipulated facts read into the record and exhibits introduced, briefs filed herein, and oral arguments of counsel, and the Commission having made its findings as to the facts and its conclusion that said respondents have violated the provisions of subsection (a) of section 2 of "An act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other purposes," approved October 15, 1914 (Clayton Act), as amended by the act approved June 19, 1936 (Robinson-Patman Act), It is ordered, That respondents Clinton Co., a corporation, and Clinton Sales Co., a corporation, and their officers, representatives, agents, and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale, and distribution of glucose or corn syrup unmixed in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the aforesaid Clayton Act, do forthwith· cease and desist from:

1. Directly or indirectly discriminating in price between different purchasers of glucose or corn syrup unmixed of like grade and quality in the manner and degree set forth in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the findings as to the facts herein, or in any manner or degree substantially similar thereto, or from continuing or resuming any such discriminations in price.

2. Discriminating in price between different purchasers of glucose by the methods set out in paragraph 5 of the findings as to the facts herein, or otherwise discriminating in price between purchasers by means of the booking or entry of orders for glucose or corn syrup unmixed, where the price differences between purchasers resulting therefrom substantially approximate or exceed those set out in paragraphs 4 or 6 of the findings as to the facts herein, provided this shall not prohibit actual sales of glucose or corn syrup unmixed for future delivery '~which do not involve such discriminations in price at the time of actual sale.

3. Otherwise discriminating in price as between purchases of glucase or corn syrup unmixed of like grade and quality where the effect may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in the lines of commerce in which customers of respondent are engaged, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with nny recipient of the benefit of such discrimination, provided that this shall not prevent price differen•~es which make only due allowance for OrdP-r 3-tF.T.C.

differences in the cost of manufacture, sale, or delivery resulting from the differing methods or quantities in which said glucose is to such purchasers sold or delivered, and provided further that this shall not prevent respondents from showing that any lower price to any purchaser was made in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor of respondents.

It is fw·tlter ordered~ That respondents shall, within 60 days after the service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in.which they have complied with this order.

WARNER'S RENOWNED REMEDIES CO. 891 Syllabus