Appendix — United States v. Pabst Brewing Co.
Supreme Court brief1966
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
es
SUPREME COURT OF THIit UNITED STATES
OcToBER TERM, 1965
No. 404
UNITED STATES, APPELLANT,
vs.
PABST BREWING COMPANY, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
INDEX
Original Print
Record from the United States District Court for the East-
ern District of Wisconsin
bg ON EES a Oi aa ean ie DC tc Oe NR mea, © en 1 Es
RI hs ig ie Hie Oo oc tt p's 13 22
Memorandum decision, Tehan, Ch. J................ 20 27
Order denying motions of defendants Schenley Indus-
tries, Inc. and The Val Corporation for summary
judgments of dismissal.......................... 23 30
Answer of defendant Pabst Brewing Company...... 24 31
Answer of defendants Schenley Industries, Inc. and
De WU TN oo 5s > icin s se Kanes cuneate 34 38
Transcript of proceedings upon pre-trial conference,
BN es I ike as akan abalone ete 41 43
MIE Chia og eR U SR nba Gee ow hw kent 41 43
Colloquy between Court and counsel............ 43 43
Pre-trial order No. 1, dated July 7, 1961............ 60 53
Plaintiff’s response to pre-trial order............... 62 55
Order following pre-trial conference of November 20,
1961, dated November 22, 1961.................. 69 62
Plaintiff’s further response to pre-trial order (as re-
vised by plaintiff’s revision of page 11).......... 73 64
ii INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for the East-
ern District of Wisconsin—Continued Original Print
Order following pre-trial conference of January 15,
1962, dated January 18, 1962..:......-------+--) 103 96
Motion for order authorizing issuance of subpoenas.. 106 97
Agreed order authorizing issuance of subpoenas... .. . 108 98
Attachments—Three forms of subpoena duces
tecum
Motions of defendant Pabst Brewing Company for
entry of a protective order and for clarification of
Court’s order of April 4, 1962.........-.------:- 118 107
Order regarding responses to subpoenas issued pur-
suant to order of April 4, 1962, dated May 29,1962 122 110
Order following pre-trial conference of October 12,
1962, dated October 26, 1962.........----.---.- 124 112 ;
Order following pre-trial conference of February 25, :
1963, dated March 13, 1963.........-------- s+ 128 115 :
Letter from Earl A. Jinkinson to Tehan, Ch. J., dated
Aaell YR, GB. 5s eee 131 117
Order following pre-trial conference of May 6, 1963,
dated Wee © TD. o-oo ic eget i ee 133 «sag
Letter from Earl A. Jinkinson to Tehan, Ch. J., dated
August 19, 1963............-------se eee 134 120
Order following conference of September 11, 1963, j
dated September 12, 1963..........------ 1-005: 135 122
Motion for permission to issue subpoenas for witnesses ‘
living outside of the Eastern District of Wisconsin 136 123
Order approving issuance of subpoenas, dated Janu-
ary S WOOK. a re cee sree ter rte es 137 124
Pre-trial order following conference of January 13,
1964, dated January 20, 1964.........---.- +: 138 125
Letter from Earl E. Jinkinson to Tehan, Ch. J., dated
January 22, 1964........-.---.- serene 140 126
Transcript of proceedings upon trial to the Court on
the issue of liability, January 27-28, W004... 142 127
Appearances ........------s-screerrrcrt 142 127
Offers in evidence...........------s+ss0te0re 144 127
Deposition of Harris Perlstein (excerpts)...... 146 128
Deposition of Rocco B. Bunino (excerpts) ..... 153 131
Offers in evidence...........-.-----:+s scree 161 132
Deposition of Rocco B. Bunino (resumed) (ex-
pS ere ee fey: | 136 |
INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for the East-
ern District of Wisconsin—Continued
Joint Exhibits:
Nos. JX-1-JX-11—Tax paid withdrawals by States
for the years 1933 through 1961..............
Nos. JX-12-JX-21—Consumption by States for the
years 1934 through 1961.....................
Nos. JX-22-J X-31—Production by States for the
years 1935 through 1961... .................
Nos. JX-32-JX-46—Sales of beer in the United
States for the years 1957 through 1961........
Nos. JX-47-JX-59—Sales of Pabst and Blatz for
the years 1949 through 1961.................
Nos. JX-60-J X-80—Sales of beer in Wisconsin for
the years 1955 through 1961.................
Nos. JX-81-JX-85—Sales of beer in Michigan for
the years 1957 through 1961.................
Nos. JX-86-J X-90—Sales of beer in Illinois for the
years 1957 through 1961.....................
Nos. JX-91-JX-100—Sales of beer in three-State
area, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, for the years
I Sve <5 nso a5. os pete ci es
Government Exhibits:
No. GX-105—Answers to interrogatories served on
defendant Pabst Brewing Company, November
Be kk oka e Wc anal Pee AN» 0 5.)
No. GX-106—Answer to Interrogatory 1........
No. GX-107—Answer to Interrogatory 2(a).....
No. GX-108—Answer to Interrogatory 2(b).....
No. GX-109—Answer to Interrogatory 3........
No. GX-110—Answer to Interrogatory 4(a).....
No. GX-115—Answer to Interrogatory 10 as
amended and modified by Agreed Order entered
ORE, Big Ms ako < pecs Oe Beata les
No. GX-118—Answer to Interrogatory 20(a)....
‘No. GX-124—Answer to Interrogatory 26 as
amended and modified by Agreed Order entered
as Be od oo a So fa hee ke
Nos. GX-133-GX-134—Total dollar volume spent
by Pabst Brewing Company for advertising and
promotion of Pabst Brand beer nationally, and
in the State of Wisconsin for each year from
LE os hii eS i ee rae Ci ka cet
Nos. GX-135-GX-136—Total dollar volume spent
by Pabst Brewing Company for advertising and
promotion of Blatz Brand beer nationally, and
in the State of Wisconsin for the years 1959 and
Original Print
173-139
184 150
194 160
204 =—«170
219 185
232 «198
253 219
258 224
263 229
273239
276 «242
279 244
280 246
282 248
284 = -250
286 6-253
295 260
296 261
308 = 272
Record from the United States District Court for the East-
ern District of Wisconsin—Continued
Government Exhibits—Continued Original Print |
No, GQX-137—Pabst intra-company memo, dated :
September 22, 1958. .... Sie ES 312 276 |
Attachment—Copy of intra-company letter |
from J. F. Morley to J, C, Windham, dated |
August 6, 1958.60 re B15 279 |
No. GX-140—Pabst intra-company memo from
J. A. Duffy to G, P. Butler, dated October 10,
\ Sarees yl ee P are
No. QX-141—Pabst intra-company memo from
Michael MeCabe to W. 0. Dillingham, dated
November 10, 1956....... : 321 286
No. G@X-142—Pabst intra-company memo from
M. S. Lachner to H, G, Harris, dated May 7,
SOUF ccc score Seca 323 BA)
No. GX-144—Pabst intra-company memo from
M. &, Lachner to H, G. Harris, dated May 13,
SOUR: os sey ceca ds is ae B24 290
No. G@X-145—Pabst intra-company letter from
W. L. Travis, Jr, to Marshall S, Lachner, dated
March 20, 1957 32h 292
No. GQX-147—-Pabst intra-company memo from
C. F. Greenwood to H, G, Harris, dated June 5,
1957... 329 Jos
No, @X-148-—Pabst intra-company meno from
Charles B, Olds to C.F. Greenwood, dated May
31, 1957 B30 200
No, QX-150—Pabst intra-company meno from
Charles B. Olds to Marshall 8. Lachner, dated
September 17, 1956 : 332 301
No. QX-152—-Letter from Pabst Brewing Com-
pany to H. Rinstandig, dated August 5, 1957 a4 303
No. GX-153—-Pabst intra-company memo from
R. S. Gregory to H, G, Harris, dated March 20,
1957 336 305
No, QX-155—-Pabst intra-company memo from
B. H, Schram to R, H. Heman, dated February
14, 1957 ; 341 311
No. GX-156-—Minutes of meeting of Executive
Committee of Board of Directors of Pabst
Brewing Company held on April 24, 1957 Be 313
Nos. GX-186-QX-190-——Perventage of beer sold in
Wisconsin by major brewing companies, 1957-
1961 a48 $21
No. GQX-191—Sales of beer in Wisconsin by the
largest sellers, 1955-1961 B43 326
317 281
as
INDEX Vv
Record from the United States District Court for the East-
ern District of Wiseonsin—Continued
Government Exhibits—Continued Original Print
No, GX-192A—Wisconsin beer statistics... a4 327
No, GX-193—Draft and package beer sales in the
State of Wisconsin as a percentage of total sales
for the years 1955-1961. . 35 328
Nos, GX-194-GX- 198—Pereentage of beer sold i in
Michigan by major brewing companies, 1957-
1961 356 329
Nos, @X-199-GX- 203—Percentage of beer sold in
Illinois by major brewing companies, 1957-1961 361 334
Nos, GX-204-GX-208—Percentage of beer sold in
the three State area of Wisconsin, Illinois and
Michigan by major brewing companies, 1957-
1961 366 339
No. GX- 209—Sales of beer in the United States
by major brewing companies, 1957-1961, show-
ing paat sales of industry leaders as of 1961 and
sales of Blata..... 371 344
No, GX-210-—Perventage of beer sold by the top
twenty-five brewing companies. . 372 345
No, GX-211-—Percentage of beer sold in the
United States by the top ten brewing companies 373 346
No, GX-212—Deeline in the number of breweries
in the United States and the trend towards con-
centration in the brewing industry 374 347
No, GX-213—Brewery attrition, 1949-1961 B75 348
No, G@X-214—1961 per capita consumption of
draught beer in the United States by States
reporting consumption of draught beer 376 B49
No, GX-215—Draft and package beer sales in
1960 and 1961 in various States as a percentage
of total sales. 377 350
No, GX-245-—Table 1—Produetion of malt bever-
ages in the United States, fiscal years ending
June 30, 1863-1961 383 357
No, GQX-252—Table 12—Number of breweries op-
erated by States, fiseal years ended June 30,
1949-1961 _ as4 359
Nos. GX-256-QX-257-—-Excerpts from the 19¢1
Blue Book Issue, Modern Brewery Age 385 361
No, GX-260——Table 5—Tax-paid withdrawals of
draught beer, by States, fiscal vears—barrels of
31 gallons——1942-1961 ARS 411
No, GX-261—-Table 6-—Tax-paid withdrawals of
malt beverages, by States, fiseal vears—barrels
of 31 gallons-—1942-1961 436 418
vi INDEX
Record from the United States District Court for the East-
ern District of Wisconsin—Continued
Government Exhibits—Continued
No. GX-264—Table 41—Per capita consumption
of malt beverages by States, calendar years—
1936-1961—gallons ........--- 6s seer
No. GX-265—Table 64—-Methods of tax collection,
by States, July 1, 1962........-.-- 0-1
Defendant’s motion for dismissal at close of plaintiff's
pS EE SM PO OT or a COIN Shee Sick eee
Transcript of proceedings upon motion of defendant,
Pabst Brewing Company, to dismiss, April 30, 1964
(qmeGe NN) ea eh ea ees so es
Statement by Mr. Long, on behalf of Government,
as to why case should not be dismissed... .....
Opinion, Tehan, Ch. J..........-------0sesrrr
Findings of fact and conclusions of law..........----:
Final judgment of PS ane ieee eee ao et aR
Notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United
ite Ree Wei May eke ae eats ees ee ESTP |
Clerk’s certificate (omitted in printing) .......-------
Order noting probable jurisdiction... a
Original
437
438
440
442
415
417
419
420
[fols. 1-2]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Civil Docket 59-C-215
Unrtep Srates or America, Plaintiff,
v.
Passt Brewrne Company, ScHEenutey Inpvustries, Inc.,
THe Vat Corporation, Defendants
Viol. See. 7 of Clayton Act To require Pabst to divest
itself of business and assets. Action arose at: of Blatz.
Docket ENTRIES
{fol. 3]
Date Proceedings
10/ 1/59 Complaint filed; Summons issued.
Pitf’s motion and order that summons be issued
and service made by the Marshal.
10 /6/59 Summons ret’d. Served Deft. Val Corp. on 10/5/59.
10/ 9/59 Summons ret’d. Served Deft. Schenley Industries,
Inc. on 10/6/59 by Dep. U. 8. Marshal, New
York City.
10/13/59 Summons ret’d. Served Deft. Pabst Brewing Co.
on 10/7/59.
10/19/59 Order extending time for defts. to answer extended
to 12/14/59.
11/13/59 Pitf’s Request for Deft. Pabst Brewing Co. answer
certain Interrogatories with Notice of Filing
* with Clerk; Proof of Service; and Affidavit of
Mailing Request to Ray T. McCann, atty for
Pabst Brewing Co. and Robert S. Marx, Cin-
cinnati, Ohio, atty. for Schenley Industries, Inc.
and the Val Corp.
11/16/59 Order extending time for Deft. Pabst Brewing Co.
to object .o Interrogatories extended to
12/22/59; time which deft. may answer inter-
rogatories extended to 1/6/60.
Date
12/ 1/59
12/10/59
12/14/59
12/18/59
1/13/60
1/21/60
“
1/27/60
1/29/60
P i
Appearance of Ralph M. Hoyt, atty. for Defts.
Schenley Industries, Inc. and The Val Corp.
Affidavit of Gunter Bethke in support of Defts’
motions for Summary Judgment of Dismissal
as to Defts. Schenley Industries Inc. and The
Val Corp. with Motion and Notice of Motion.
Exhibits A, B. and C attached.
Motion of deft. Pabst to strike Paragraph 17 of
complaint, or alternatively for more definite
statement, with aff. of mailing, and supporting
brief.
Brief in support of motions for summary judgment
of dismissal as to defts., Schenley Industries,
Inc. and The Val Corp.
Agreed order extending time to answer or object
to interrogatories, and time to file brief in
opposition to deft’s motion to strike or for more
definite statement.
Pitf’s motion for production and inspection of
documents under Rule 34, together with sup-
porting affidavit of Earl A. Jinkinson and notice
and affidavit of service.
Memorandum in support of Objections to Inter-
rogatories served on deft. Pabst Brewing Co.
Objections of Deft. Pabst Brewing Company, to
Interrogatories served on Deft. Pabst Brewing
Company on 11/13/59 and Affidavit of Mailing.
Pltf’s More Definite Statement Voluntarily Sub-
mitted under Rule 12(e) with respect to para-
graph 17 of the complaint.
Pltf’s Memorandum in Opposition to Motion of
Deft. Pabst Brewing Company to Strike Par. 17
from the Complaint or in the Alternative for a
More Definite statement of Claim.
Deft. Pabst granted up to 2/15/60 to file its brief;
Pitf. granted up to 3/7/60 to file.
2/ 1/60
2/15/60
[fol. 4]
2/15/60
2/23/60
2/26/60
3/ 7/60
3/ 7/60
Proceedings
Brief of the United States in Opposition to the
motions of the defendants Schenley Industries,
Inc. and The Val Corporation for Summary
Judgment of Dismissal as to them; Affidavit of
Earl Jinkinson in opposition to Motions for
Summary Judgment of Dismissal at the defts.
Schenley Industries, Inc. and The Val Corp.;
Notice and Affidavit of Mailing covering the
above documents.
Agreed order: 1. withdrawing motions of Pabst to
strike Paragraph 17 from complaint or make
more definite and certain; 2. Extending time of
Pabst to answer to 4/15/60; Withdrawing pltf’s
motion for producting of documents, without
prejudice; and providing that Pabst shall furnish
names and address of beer distributors, etc.
Hearing (Ret) on defts’ motion for summary
judgment.
Transcript of Proceedings upon Hearing on Defts’
(Schenley Industries, Inc.) and The Val Corpora-
tion) Motion for Summary Judgment of Dis-
missal. (2/15/60)
Order that time which deft. Pabst Brewing Co.
may answer interrogatories served by pltf.
extended to 3/7/60 with consent of pltf.
Motion of deft., Pabst Brewing Co., for protective
order with respect to answers to interrogatories
served on it by pltf. Nov. 13, 1959, with sup-
porting affidavit by Joseph R. Gray.
Notice of deft’s motion for protective order, etc.
Deft’s answers to interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 12(b), 13, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 30
filed, and given confidential treatment by order
of the court.
Agreed order that pltf. have until 3/22/60 to
file brief in opposition to objections of deft,
Pabst, to certain interrogatories served on
11/13/59.
Date Proceedings
3/ 9/60 Order that Deft. Pabst Brewing Company’s
Answers to pltf’s interrogatories numbered 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12(b), 13 as it applies to 12(b)
17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 30 filed with this
court on 3/7/60 shall be accorded confidential
treatment; answers to be filed with the court in
a sealed envelope to be placed in custody of
the clerk, etc.
3/16/60 Deft. Pabst Brewing Company’s Notice that on
3/16/60 the names and addresses of beer dis-
tributors or wholesalers within the continental
United States who handled either Pabst-brewed
beer or Blatz-brewed beer in the month of July
1958 and since 8/1/58 to 12/31/58, have ceased
handling Pabst-brewed beer, will be filed.
3/21/60 Order that Interrogatories numbered 11, 12(a), 15,
16, 18, 27 and 29 served by pltf. on the Deft.
Pabst Brewing Company on 11/13/59 are with-
drawn without prejudice; that interrogatories
numbered 10, 12(c), 14, 19, 26 and 28 are hereby
amended and modified; further that Deft. Pabst -
Brewing Company is granted leave to 4/22/60
to answer interrogatories 12(c), 14, 19 and 28
as modified by this order and is granted up to
5/22/60 to answer Interrogatories 10 and 26 as
modified by this order.
4/ 7/60 Memorandum decision, and order denying motions
of defts, Schenley Industries, Inc. and The Val
Corporation for summary judgments of dis-
missal.,
4/12/60 Order extending time for defts. Schenley Industries,
Inc. and The Val Corp. to answer extended to
5/9/60 with consent thereof.
4/15/60 Answer of Defendant, Pabst Brewing Company,
filed.
4/22/60 Deft. Pabst Brewing Company’s Notice of Filing
Ansv;er to Pltf’s Interrogatories with Affidavit
of Mailing.
eee
4/28/60
[fol. 5]
5/ 4/60
«
5/ 5/60
5/ 9/60
5/13/60
5/17/60
5/23/60
5/23/60
5/31/60
P —
Answers of Deft. Pabst Brewing Company to
Interrogatories 12(c), 13 as it applies to 12(c),
14, 19 and 28 Served on said deft. 11/13/60 as
amended and modified by agreed order entered
3/21/60.
Agreed order that deft., Pabst’s answers to inter-
rogatories 12(c), 13 as it applies to 12(c), 14, 19
and 28 shall be accorded confidential treatment.
Deft., Pabst’s, notice of filing amendment of
answer to Interrogatory 12(c) as amended.
Said answer to be accorded confidential treat-
ment.
Pitf’s motion for a preliminary injunction, with
supporting affidavit of Earl A. Jinkinson. Notice
of motion filed.
Pitf’s motion to strike certain matter from the
answer of the deft., Pabst Brewing Co.
Answer of Defts. Schenley Industries, Inc. and
The Val Corp. filed, with Defts’ Proof of Service
by Mail to attys. for pltf. and Atty. for Deft.
Pabst Brewing Company.
Hearing (Ret) on pltf’s motion for prelim. inj.
and motion to strike.
Order fixing times for filing briefs, affidavits and
counter-affidavits with respect to Pltf’s motion
for a temporary injunction.
Pltf’s motion to strike certain matter from the
answer of defts., Schenley Industries, Inc. and
The Val Corporation, with Notice of Motions.
Hearing (Ret) on pltf’s motion to strike portions
of answers.
Agreed order fixing time for deft., Pabst, to answer
interrogatories 10 and 26, as amended and
modified by agreed order of 3/21/60, and
directing that said answers be accorded con-
fidential treatment.
Agreed order extending time for filing briefs.
Date
6/ 8/60
6/ 8/60
Proceedings
Pitf’s Brief in support of Motion to Strike Certain
Matter from the Answer of Defts. Schenley
Industries, Inc. and The Val Corporation with
Notice of Filing Brief in Clerk of Court Office.
Deft. Pabst Brewing Company’s Notice of filing
the following listed below with pltf’s Proof of
Service.
Answer of Pabst Brewing Co. to pltf’s Motion
for preliminary injunction.
Memorandum in support of deft. Pabst Brewing
Company’s first defense in its answer to pltf’s
motion for preliminary injunction.
Affidavit of Rocco B. Bunino in opposition to pltf’s
motion for preliminary injunction.
Affidavit of Joseph R. Gray in opposition to pltf’s
motion for preliminary injunction.
Affidavit of William W. Heusner in opposition to
pltf’s motion for preliminary injunction.
Affidavit of Glenn W. McGee in opposition to
pitf’s motion for preliminary injunction.
Memorandum in opposition to pltf’s motion to
strike in part Par. 19 of Deft. Pabst Brewing
Company’s Answer.
Deft., Schenley’s, motion to deny pltf’s motion for
preliminary injunction against Schenley, with
supporting memorandum and appendix con-
taining affidavits (copies), which have been filed
earlier in the case.
Agreed order that portions of pltf’s motion for
preliminary injunction filed on 5/9/60 requesting
injunctive relief against Pabst with respect to
the former Blatz Brewery in Milwaukee are
withdrawn with prejudice. Deft., Pabst will not
sell or dispose of former Blatz equipment or
facilities located thereon on 6/7/60 which were
there on 7/29/58 until further order; provided
that readily replaceable miscellaneous minor
pieces of equipment are not affected by this
order.
j
;
*)
[fol. 6]
6/27/60
6/28/60
7/ 6/60
7/ 8/60
8/ 4/60
9/ 7/60
10/13/60
Proceedings
Answers of Deft. Pabst Brewing Co. to Inter-
rogatories 10 and 26 served on Deft. 11/13/59
as amended and modified by Agreed Order
entered 3/21/60 (These Answers are Confidential)
Notice of Filing. Answers to Interrogatories.
Interrogatories of Deft. Pabst Brewing Co. ad-
dressed to pltf. with Notice of Filing Inter-
rogatories and Affidavit of Mailing.
Pitf’s reply briefs supporting motion to strike
certain matter from answer of deft., Pabst
Brewing Co.
Brief of Defts, Schenley and Val, in opposition to
Pitf’s Motion to Strike Certain Matters from
their Answer.
Agreed order extending time to pltf. to file briefs
to 7/25/60.
Notice and Proof of Service of Agreed Order of
7/6/60.
Agreed order extending time of pltf to file answers
or objections to interrogatories served by Pabst
on 6/24/60 to 10/15/60; oral hearing on pltf’s
motion for prelim. inj. to be held following
filing of pltf’s answers to said interrogatories
numbered 9 to 15 and 58 to 67, except where
pltf’s objections thereto are sustained by the
court.
Pabst’s Memorandum in reply to Pitf’s brief in
opposition to deft, Pabst’s, first defense to pltf’s
motion for preliminary injunction.
Transcript of Proceedings upon Hearing on (1)
Pitf’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction; (2)
Pltf’s Motion to Strike Certain Matter from the
Answer to Deft. Pabst Brewing Company.
Order granting pltf. until 11/15/60 within which
time to file its answer or objections with respect
to each of the interrogatories served on it
6/24/60 by deft. Pabst Brewing Co.
Date
11/14/60
«
11/18/60
11/28/60
12/ 5/60
12/16/60
1/23/61
[fol. 7]
1/30/61
Proceedings
Answers to Certain Interrogatories served on Pitf.
by Deft. Pabst Brewing Co. 6/24/60.
Objections of Pltf. to Interrogatories served on it
6/24/60 by Deft. Pabst Brewing Co.
Notice and Affidavit of Mailing covering above
Answers and Objections of Pltf.
Brief in Support of Plitf’s Objections to Certain
Interrogatories served on it 6/24/60 by Deft.
Pabst Brewing Company; Affidavit of Mailing
covering the above brief.
Agreed order extending time for filing briefs.
Order that the time within which pltf. may file
its Reply Brief to the brief to be filed by the
Deft. Pabst is extended to 1/23/61.
Motion of Deft. Pabst Brewing Company to
Compel Plaintiff to Completely Answer Inter-
rogatories 7, 10 and 14 served on Plaintiff by
said Defendant on 6/24/60.
Brief in Answer to Pltf’s Objections to Certain
Pabst Interrogatories served on Plaintiff 6/24/60
and in support of the Pabst Motion to Compel
Plaintiff to completely answer other interroga-
tories.
Pitf’s Notice of filing with Clerk of Court pltf’s
Reply brief with Respect to Its Objections to
Certain Interrogatories served on it 6/24/60 by
Deft. Pabst Brewing Co. and in Opposition to
Pabst’s Motion to Compel Ptf. to answer com-
pletely other interrogatories.
Pltf’s Reply Brief with Respect to its Objections
to Certain Interrogatories served on it 6/24/60
by Deft. Pabst and in Opposition to Pabst’s
Motion to compel pltf. to answer completely
other Interrogatories.
Consent and order substituting Leonard J. /:mmer-
glick as atty. for Schenley Industries, Inc. and
The Val Corporation, in place of Roy G. Rolmes
and Robert 8. Marx. Atty. Ralph Hoyt con-
tinues as local counsel for them.
Date
7/18/60
7/25/60
3/ 8/61
3/28/61
3/28/61
3/31/61
5/ 1/61
5/15/61
6/21/61
7/ 7/61
Proceedings
Plaintiff's Reply Brief in support of motion to
strike certain matters from the answer of de-
iendants, Schenley Industries, Inc. and The Val
Corporation.
Brief in opposition to defendant Pabst Brewing
Company’s First Defense in its answer to plain-
tiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.
Agreed order setting down oral arguments on the
following motions: 1. Motion of Pltf. to strike
certain matter from the answer of Defts. Pabst
Brewing Company, Schenley Industries, Inc.
and The Val Corp. 2. Objections of Plitf. to
Interrogatories of Deft. Pabst Brewing Com-
pany. 3. Motion of Deft. Pabst Brewing Co, to
compel pitf. to completely answer Interrogatories
7, 10 and 14.
Notice of substitution of Leonard J. Emmerglick
as one of the attys for Schenley and Val, in
place of Robert S. Marx and Roy G. Holmes,
and for termination of appearance of firm of
Nichols, Wood, Marx & Ginter as counsel for
said defts.
Hearing on pltf’s Motion to strike certain matters
from Answer of defts, etc.
Order denying motion of Pltf. to strike certain
matter from the Answer of Deft. Pabst Brew-
ing Co.
Order Denying Motion of pltf. to strike certain
matters from the Answer of Defts. Schenley
Industries, Inc. and The Val Corporation.
Transcript of proceedings upon hearing of (1)
Pltf’s motion to strike certain matters from
answer of defts; (2) Plitf’s objections to inter-
rogatories of deft., Pabst; and (3) Motion of
ceft., Puhst, to compel pltf to answer inter-
1ogatories 7, 10 and 14. Hearing held on 3/28/61.
Pre-trial conference.
Tranecript of pre-trial conference held 5/15/61.
Order following 5/15/61 pre-trial conference.
Second pre-trial conf. set for 10/9/61 at 2:00 p.m.
10
Date
9/18/61
9/29/61
“
o
10/16/61
11/20/61
11/22/61
1/11/62
1/15/62
1/18/62
1/19/62
1/29/62
4/ 4/62
5/21/62
|fol. 8]
5/22/62
5/22/62
5/24/62
Proceedings
Pitf’s response to pre-trial order of 7/7/61, listing
witnesses to be called, etc.
Deposition of Harris Perlstein taken by pltf. at
Chicago, Ill. on 8/7/61.
Deposition of Rocco B. Bunino taken by pltf. at
Chicago, Ill. on 8/8/61. No. I.
Deposition of Rocco B. Bunino taken by pltf. at
Chicago, Ill. on 8/9/61. No. Il.
Agreed order adjourning second pre-trial conf.
from 10/23/61 to 11/20/61.
Pre-trial conf. held. (Ret) Pre-trial order issued.
Order following 11/20/61 pre-trial conf. Further
pre-trial conf. scheduled for 1/15/62 at 2:00 p.m.
Piti's further response to pre-trial order (Para-
graph 1D) dated 11/22/61.
Pre-trial conf. held. Order entered.
Order following 1/15/62 pre-trial conf. (Ret)
Revised page 11 of Pitf’s Further Response to
pre-trial order filed.
Deft., Pabst Brewing Co., motion for an order
authorizing Clerk to issue subpoenas duces
tecum to each of witnesses names in Pltf’s
response to pre-trial order filed 9/15/61 and
pitf’s further response filed 1/10/62.
Agreed order that clerk shall issue subpoenas for
service in any judicial district of the U. S. to
witnesses named in Pltf’s response ete. to pre-t.
order.
Deft. Pabst’s motion for entry of a protective order
and for clarification of court’s order of 4/4/62,
to be heard 5/22/62.
Hearing on motion of Pabst for protective order
and clarification of 4/4/62 order, Order issued
by court, to be drafted by Atty. McGee.
Tabulated information on production and sales
figures filed by Berlin Brewing Co.
Affidavit of Henry Dhein, Jr., V-Pres. of West
Bend Lithia Co., on production and sales
figures.
11
Date Proceedings
5/28/62 Affidavit of Frederick J. Effinger, Asst. Sec’y and
Treas. of Effinger Brewing Co., Baraboo, Wis.
on production and sales figures. (Mailed to
Atty. David A. Nelson).
5/29/62 Ltr. dated 5/28/62 from Atty. Nelson suggesting
following entry:
5/26/62 Responses to subpoenas returnable this
date returned by Clarence Rothe,
Rahr Green Bay Brewing Co.;
Richard F. Haidlinger, Peoples
Brewing Co.; Roland J. Marx,
George Walter Brewing Co.; Harry
Kikenberry, Froedtert Malt Corp.;
Herbert Kurth, Kurth Malting Co.;
Herbert Ladish, Ladish Malting
Co.; Clarence Alt, Rahr Malting
Co.; C. Robert Morris, Zinn Malting
Co.; Stanley Williams, Wisconsin
Malting Co. Return date extended
to 6/8/62 on subpoenas returnable
this date served upon Lorenz Kuenzal,
Oshkosh Brewing Co.; Edmund C.
Bloedorn, Fox Head Brewing Co.;
David Struther, Joseph Schlitz
Brewing Co.
5/29/62 Stipulated “protective order” providing that docu-
ments produced in response to subpoenas shall be
returned to the party producing them after the
attorneys for the parties have had an opportunity
to inspect and copy them. Copies to be admis-
sibly as to authenticity, but may be objected to
on grounds of relevancy, and may be contradicted
as to truth of the contents, or accuracy. All
copies shall be treated as confidential until fur-
ther order of the court, and may be disclosed
only to the attorneys or employees of the parties
as may be actively engaged in the preparation
of this case for use only in the preparation of
this case, and not otherwise. Addn’! provisions
that U. S. may have addn’l time to subpoena
other evidence if not satisfied with the responses
already made.
12
Date
5/31/62
6/ 4/62
6/ 7/62
6/12/62
6/18/62
P _—
Response of G. Heileman Brewing Co. to subpoena,
Affidavit of Roy E. Kumm, Pres., and motion to
quash the subpoena as to information not fur-
nished in the response filed. (Exhibit B-1 con-
taining figures on production, etc. removed from
affidavit and mailed to Atty. David A. Nelson).
Affidavit of Edmund B. Koller, pres. of The Walter
Brewing Co., Pueblo, Colorado, giving figures on
productions and sales in response to subpoena.
Ltr. dated 6/2/62 from Carl H. Arens, Chicago,
Ill., stating that he had no records, and his under-
standing that he would not have to appear in
response to subpoena on 6/8/62.
Affidavit of George J. Holas, Pres. of the Pilsen
Brewing Co., Chicago, Ill. giving figures on pro-
duction, sales, etc. in response to subpoena.
Affidavit of Geno Castagnoli d/b/a Solano Dis-
tributing Co., Vallejo, Calif. giving figures on
purchases of Pabst and Blatz beer, and gross
profit figures on beer sales.
Ltr. dated 6/11/62 from Atty. Nelson suggesting
following entry:
6/ 8/62 Responses to subpoenas returnable
this date returned by Edmund C.
Bloedorn, Fox Head Brewing Co.;
Milton Hutchins; J. F. Fesenmeier,
Fesenmeier Brewing Co.; Thomas J.
Fatato, Eastern Brewing OCo.;
Harold B. Bloomquist, Rhinelander
Brewing Co.; Phillip Castagna. Re-
turn date extended to 6/22/62 on
subpoenas returnable this date
served upon, David Struther, Schlitz
Brewing Co.; Jones, Atlantic Brew-
ing Co.; Fred W. Huber, Huber
Brewing Co.; George W. Betz, Betz
Distributing Co.
Motion of Richard G. Jones, V-Pres. and Gen’l
Mgr. of Jackson Brewing Co., New Orleans, La.
to quash subpoena duces tecum.
Date
6/20/62
|fol. 9]
6/21/62
6/22/62
6/25/62
6/27/62
7/ 2/62
13
Proceedings
Affidavit of Phillip F. Neuweiler, Pres. of Neu-
weiler Brewing Corp., Allentown, Pa. giving
figures on production, sales, ete. in response to
subpoena. (Mailed to Atty. David A. Nelson).
Affidavit of J. M. Delmar, Exec. V-Pres. and Gen.
Mgr. of Gulf Brewing Co., Houston, Texas,
containing information in response to subpoena.
(Forwarded to Atty. David A. Nelson).
Affidavit of Frederick Sitterding, 3rd, Pres. of
Home Brewing Co., Inc., Richmond, Va., con-
taining information in response to subpoena.
(Forwarded to Atty. Nelson).
Affidavit of Joseph V. Burns., Pres., Eagle Brewing
Co., Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, containing in-
formation in response to subpoena. (Given to
Atty. Nelson).
Affidavit of Herbert Epstein, Pres., Pfeiffer Brewing
Co., Detroit, Mich., containing information in
response to subpoena. (Given to Atty. Nelson).
Affidavit of Joseph T. Ortlieb, Pres., Henry E.
Ortlieb Brewing Co., Philadelphia, Penn. con-
taining information in response to subpoena.
(Mailed to Atty. Nelson.)
Affidavit of Paul A. White, Gen. Mgr., The Pilsener
Brewing Co., Cleveland, Ohio containing infor-
mation in response to subpoena. (Mailed to Atty.
Nelson.)
Motion of August Wagner Breweries, Columbus,
Ohio, by James Amento, Pres., to quash subpoena
duces tecum.
Response of Peerless Transportation Co., Dayton,
Ohio, distributor for Pabst in Ohio, to subpoena
dated 6/7/62. (Mailed to Atty. Nelson.)
Affidavit of James H. Hall, owner of Hall Distrib-
uting Co., Salisbury, N.C. in response to sub-
poena. Employee of Blatz and Pabst in connec-
tion with sales and distribution. (Mailed to Atty.
Nelson.)
14
Date Proceedings
7/ 3/62 Ltr. dated 7/2/62 from Atty. David A. Nelson
suggesting the following entry: June 22: response
to subpoena returnable this date returned by J. :
Miner Culp, Oertel Brewing Co. Return date |
:
extended to 7/13/62 on subpoenas returnable
this date served upon: George W. Betz, Betz
Distribution Co.; Tyrus R. Jones, Atlantic
Brewing Co.; David Struther, Schlitz Brewing
Co.; R. Leiter Fitzsimons, American Brewery,
Inc.; Bruce Berckmans, International Breweries,
Inc.; Jack Sobel, Beverage Distribution Co. of
Maryland; Charles S. Withrow; John G. Hoyer,
Frank Fehr Brewing Co.; Robert A. Schiffer,
Goebel Brewing Co. Return date extended to
7/27/62 on subpoena returnable this date served
upon B. P. Bahonnon, Standard Brewing Co.
7/ 9/62 Ltr. dated 7/5/62 from Fred Koch Brewery,
Dunkirk, N.Y., Jas. M. Mead, Jr., Treasurer,
advising that because of summer vacations, they
requested a 60 day delay in responding to sub-
poena. (Copy sent to Atty. Nelson.)
7/10/62 Motion of John G. Hoyer, acting V-Pres. and
managing officer of Frank Fehr Brewing Co.,
Louisville, IXy., to quash subpoena duces tecum,
with supporting affidavit of John G. Hoyer.
7/11/62 Affidavit of William T, Middleton, 312 Broadway,
Sterling, Illinois, in response to subpoena.
1 Affidavit of James E. Sapp, Jr., V-Pres. and Gen.
Counsel of Standard Brands Incorporated, 625
Madison Ave., New York 22, N.Y., in response
to subpoena.
y Affidavit of Dewey Johnson, owner and operator of
Lancaster Bottling Works, 305 Union St., Lan-
caster, Ohio, in response to subpoena.
. Affidavit of Luttie Talmage Harris, sole proprietor,
d/b/a Harris Distributing Co., Durham, N.C.
in response to subpoena. Due to affiant’s illness,
the business was discontinued on 4/30/62. (All 4
affidavits filed on 7/11/62 forwarded to Atty.
Nelson.)
ee
Date
7/13/62
[fol. 10]
7/17/62
7/25/62
15
Proceedings
Affidavit of George William Betz, Beloit, Wis. in
response to subpoena. (Delivered to Atty.
Nelson.)
Material furnished by Diamante Distributing Co.,
Lansing, Michigan, by Anthony Diamante, in
response to subpoena.
Affidavit of R. Leiter FitzSimons, Pres. of American
Brewery, Inc., 1770 N. Gay St., Baltimore,
Maryland, in response to subpoena. (Delivered
to Atty. Nelson.)
Ltr. dated 7/16/62 from Atty. David A. Nelson
suggesting the following entry: July 13: Re-
sponses to subpoenas returnable this date re-
turned by Thomas Evans, Evans Beverage Co.;
John A. Baynes, Jr.; Edwin Wunderlin, A. W.
Walsh Co.; Richard B. Hoeksema, Meyer Dis-
tributing Co.; F. E. Raraty, Albert Schwill &
Co.; Tyrus R. Jones, Atlantic Brewing Co.;
Jack Soebel, Beverage Distributing Co.; Robert
A. Schiffer, Goebel Brewing Co.; Charles Lee,
Alpena Beer Distributing Co.; Marcus Hoffard;
Fred E. Moseley; Charles 8. Withrow.
Return date extended to July 27, 1962 on
subpoenas returnable this date served upon:
Edward Fitzgerald, Fitzgerald Bros. Brewing
Co.; William Seeley, Fitzgerald Bros. Brewing
Co.; Don L. Gamache; Everett Bartoletti; David
Struther, Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co.; Bruce
Berckmans, International Breweries, Inc.; Fred
W. Huber, Huber Brewing Co. Return date
extended to August 24, 1962 on subpoena re-
turnable this date served upon James M. Mead,
Fred Koch Brewery, Inc.
Affidavit of William F. Fitzgerald, Jr., Pres. of
Fitzgerald Bros. Brewing Co., Troy, N.Y. in
compliance with subpoena. (forwarded to Atty.
Nelson.)
Date Proceedings
7/27/62 Four typewritten sheets of figures furnished by
Alvin E. Heutchy, Sec’y and Gen’l Atty. of
F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co., purchaser on
6/20/61 of Standard Brewing Co., of Cleveland,
Ohio, in response to subpoena. (Transmitted to
Atty. Nelson.)
# Two boxes of records rec’d from Bouma &
Gamache, 504 Water St., Manistee, Mich. At
direction of Atty. Nelson, to be shipped collect
by Railway Express to him.
7/30/62 Affidavit of William Seeley that he is no longer
employed by Fitzgerald Bros. Brewing Co.,
Troy, N.Y., and that he does not have any of
their records.
” Affidavit of Herbert M. Phillips, Atty-in-fact for
Cleveland-Sandusky Brewing Corp., Cleveland,
Ohio, in response to subpoena. (Mailed to Atty.
Nelson.)
* Affidavit of Frank J. Becht, Treas. of International
Breweries, Inc., Detroit, Mich., in response to
subpoena. (Mailer to Atty. Nelson.)
¥ Motion of International Breweries, Inc. to modify
subpoena or to require advancement of costs of
complying therewith, with supporting affidavit
of Frank J. Becht, Treas. of International
Breweries, Inc.
. Affidavit of Everett Bartoletti, d/b/a Bartoletti
Beverage Co., in response to subpoena. (Mailed
to Atty. Nelson.)
8 3/62 Ltr. dated 8/2/62 from Atty. David A. Nelson sug-
gesting the following entry: July 27: Responses
to subpoena returnable this date returned by
David Struther, Joseph Schlitz Brewing Com-
pany and Fred W. Huber, Huber Brewing Co.
8/27/62 Three typewritten sheets of figures furnished by
Jas. M. Mead, Jr., Treasurer Fred Koch Brewery
_ in response to subpoena. (transmitted to Atty.
Nelson.)
Date
9/ 5/62
9/ 7/62
10/12/62
10/26/62
2/19/63
2/25/63
“
3/13/63
(fol. 11]
4/15/63
4/29/63
5/ 6/63
5/ 7/63
8/20/63
9/11/63
9/12/63
17
Proceedings
Ltr. dated 9/4/62 from Atty. Nelson advising of
receipt of “corrective affidavit of Harry Eiken-
berry,” V-Pres. of Froedtert Malt Corp.
Ltr. dated 9/6/62 from Atty. Nelson acknowledg-
ing receipt of seven boxes of documents from
Don L. Gamache of Manistee, Michigan.
Pre-trial conf. (Ret) Pre-trial order entered, to be
prepared by counsel.
Order following 10/12/62 pre-trial conf. Further
pre-trial conf. set for 2/25/63 at 2:00 p.m.
Deft., Pabst Brewing Co’s, response to order fol-
lowing pre-trial conf. of 10/12/62 together with
Appendix I, II, III.
Pre-trial conf. (Ret) Protective order signed.
Parties to prepare pre-trial order.
Protective order, on motion of deft., Pabst Brewing
Co., for confidential treatment of Pabst Brewing
Co’s response to order following pre-trial conf. of
10/12/62, including appendices thereto. (Mate-
rial to be held confidential was filed on 2/19/63.)
(Held in clerk’s safe.)
Order following pre-trial Conference of 2/25/63.
Final pre-trial to be held 5/6/63.
Ltr. dated 4/12/63 from U. 8. Atty. stating issues
involved in the case, pursuant to 3/13/63 order.
Ltr. dated 4/27/63 from deft., Pabst, stating issues
involved in the case.
Pre-trial conference. (Ret) Order entered.
Order following 5/6/63 pre-trial conference. Trial
set for 10/14/63. Estimated that trial will last
for 2 months.
Ltr. dated 8/19/63 from govt. amending items re-
ferred to on page 30 of “Pitf’s Further Response
to Pre-trial Order filed on 1/10/62, by adding
certain material.
Pre-trial conf. with the court. (Ret) Trial re-
scheduled for 1/6/64. Briefs due 12/23/63.
Order following 9/11/63 conference. Trial re-
scheduled for 1/6/64. Para. 2 of 5/7/63 amended,
re filing of briefs.
i ireernecsesnsccnss SARE
12/16/63
1/ 3/64
1/ 4/64
1/13/64
1/20/64
1/23/64
1/24/64
1/23/64
1/27/64
Proceedings
Conference with the Court (Ret). Trial date
adjourned to 1/27/64 at request of parties. Dates
of pre-trial order extended three weeks.
Conference with the Court. (Ret) Parties present
motions for issuance of subpoenas for witnesses
outside of district. No objections. Orders signed.
Govt’s motion, and order permitting pltf. to issue
subpoenas to witnesses residing more than 100
miles from Eastern Dist. of Wis.
Motion of Pabst, and order permitting Pabst to
issue subpoenas to witnesses residing more than
100 miles from the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Pre-trial conf. (Ret) Trial on liability only to be
commenced 1/27/64. On Wed. of each week,
parties to be furnished list of witnesses to be
called the following week, in the order they will
appear. Exchange of charts to be made 10 days
before being offered. Parties to prepare order.
Trial brief of deft., Pabst Brewing Co.
« « « pitf., United States of America,
Agreed order listing documents, and the admissi-
bility thereof, ete.
— Brewing Co's, reply to govt’s pretrial
brief.
Govt’s reply brief on the “Failing Enterprise”
doctrine.
Affidavit of Geno Castagnoli of Vallejo, Calif.
dated 1/21/64.
Motion of Wisconsin-Zinn Malting Corp. for a
protective order on sales and production figures
of Wisconsin Malting Co. (a predecessor), with
affidavit of Stanley Williams, aff. of mailing and
notice of motion.
Motion of Wisconsin-Zinn Malting Corp. for a pro-
tective order on sales and production figures of
Zinn Malting Co., Inc. (movant’s former name),
with aff, of Stanley Williams, aff. of mailing and
notice of motion.
1/23/64
1/27/64
1/28/64
[fol. 12]
2/ 7/64
19
Proceedings
Motion of Kurth Malting Co. for a protective order
on sales and production figures, with affidavit of
Walter A. Teipel, aff. of mailing and notice of
motion.
Stipulation and consent order (Protective Order)
that Ladish Malting Co. sales figures and figures
of any individual maltster shall not be read orally
in the court, but shall be examined by the Court
and the record otherwise be deemed sealed and
available only to the court, the parties and their
respective counsel,
Govt’s Itr. dated 1/22/64 stating that the govt.
had decided to put in its case purely with docu-
ments, with no live witnesses, so that govt. would
probably rest within two days commencing on
1/27/64.
Trial by the court (Ret) commenced.
“continued. Govt. rests. Deft.
Pabst Brewing Co.’s file motion for dismissal.
Defts. to notify court on 2/4/64 if motion will
be seriously pressed. If not, trial will resume
2/25/64.
Trial transcript, Volume I, Pages 1 to 122, Jan. 27,
1964.
Trial transcript, Volume II, Pages 123 to 230, Jan.
28, 1964.
Hearing (Ret): Conference with the court.
Deft. will press motion to dismiss. Pitf. will file
brief pointing out its case by 2/24/64. Deft.’s
answering brief by 3/16/64. Pltf’s reply brief by
3/23/64. Oral argument on 3/16/64, date for
oral argument to be set.
Consent order for protection of records of Zinn
Malting Co., Ine., on stip.
Consent order for protection of records of Wis.
Malting Co., Inc., on stip.
Consent order for protection of records of Kurth
Malting Co., Inc., on stip.
20
Date Proceedings
2/24/64 Govt’s brief in opposition to deft’s motion to dis-
miss.
3/16/64 Brief of deft., Pabst Brewing Co., in support of its
motion to dismiss.
3/30/64 Govt’s reply brief to brief of deft., Pabst, in support
of its motion to dismiss.
4/30/64 Hearing (Ret) on motion of deft., Pabst Brew-
ing Co., to dismiss. Taken under advisement.
Deft. to provide proposed findings and pltf. to
respond. (2 wks and 2 wks.)
5/15/64 Pabst Brewing Co.’s proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
5/25/64 Transcript of 4/30/64 proceedings on deft’s motion
to dismiss.
6/ 1/64 Govt’s response to proposed findings of fact sub-
9/22/64 Opinion of court holding that motion of deft.,
counsel to prepare proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law and submit them to pltf. for
approval as to form.
10/13/64 Findings of fact and conclusions of law.
. Final judgment of dismissal, granting deft., Pabst
Brewing Co.’s, motion for judgment of dismissal,
and dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
12/11/64 Notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of the
United States filed by the pltf. from the judgment
entered on 10/13/64. Govt’s certificate of service
of notice of appeal on attys. in the case.
1/22/65 Order, on application of Clerk of Court, extending
time for docketing record on appeal in Supreme
Court of U.S. until 3/15/65.
3/ 1/65 Order, on application of Clerk of Court, extending
: time for docketing record on appeal in Supreme
Court of U. S. until 3/29/65.
3/18/65 Order, on application of Clerk of Court, extending
time for docketing record on appeal in Supreme
Court of U. S. until 4/30/65.
Date Proceedings
4/22/65 Order, on application of Clerk of Court, extending
time for docketing record on appeal in Supreme
Court of U. 8. until 5/31/65.
5/28/65 Order, on application of Clerk of Court, extending
time for docketing record on appeal in Supreme
Court of U. S. until 6/30/65.
6/29/65 Order, on application of Clerk of Court, extending
time for docketing record on appeal in Supreme
Court of U. 8. until 7/31/65.
22
(fol. 13] [File endorsement omitted]
In tHE Unrrep States District Court FoR THE EastERN
District oF WISCONSIN
Civil Action No. 59-C-215
[Title omitted]
Comptaint—Filed October 1, 1959
The United States of America, Plaintiff, by its attorneys,
acting under the direction of the Attorney General of the
United States, brings this Civil Action to obtain equitable
relief against the above-named defendants, and complains
and alleges as follows:
Jurisdiction and Venue
1. This complaint is filed and this action is instituted
against the defendants under section 15 of the Act of
Congress of October 15, 1914, c. 323, 38 Stat. 736, as amended,
entitled ‘‘An Act to supplement existing laws against un-
jawful restraints and monopolies and for other purposes,’’
commonly known as the Clayton Act, in order to prevent
and restrain the violation by the defendants, as hereinafter
alleged, of section 7 of said Act.
9. The defendant Pabst Brewing Company transacts
business and is found within the Eastern District of Wis-
consin.
Defendants
3. Pabst Brewing Company (hereinafter referred to as
Pabst), is named a defendant herein. Pabst is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Dela-
ware, with its principal office in Chicago, Illinois.
4. Schenley Industries, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as
Schenley), is named a defendant herein. Schenley is a
[fol. 14] corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the State of Delaware, with its principal office in New
York City, New York.
5. Val Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Val) is
named a defendant herein. Val is a corporation organized
ans
23
and existing under the laws of the State of Wisconsin, with
its principal office in Madison, Wisconsin.
6. Subsequent to the acquisition, hereinafter described
in paragraph 19, by Pabst of the assets and business of
the Blatz Brewing Company (hereinafter referred to as
Blatz), Blatz, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Schenley,
amended its corporate charter to change its name to The
Val Corporation. At the same time, a wholly-owned Pabst
subsidiary, the Pabst Sales Corporation, amended its cor-
porate charter, changing its name to the Blatz Brewing
Company, and was thereafter, on February 27, 1959, merged
into Pabst.
Trade and Commerce
7. The production of beer on a commercial scale was
re-instituted in the United States on December 5, 1933,
following the adoption of the twenty-first amendment to the
Constitution. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1935, there
were 750 breweries operating in the United States pro-
ducing 42,782,378 barrels of beer. Through merger, con-
solidation and natural attrition, this number has decreased
so that by June 30, 1958, there were 252 breweries pro-
ducing 84,790,791 barrels of beer annually. By 1957 the
25 largest companies engaged in the brewing of beer in the
United States accounted for approximately 69 percent of
total national sales of beer.
8. Pabst owns and operates breweries iocated in Mil-
waukee, Wisconsin, Peoria Heights, Illinois, Newark, New
Jersey, and Los Angeles, California. Beer produced by
Pabst in these breweries was in 1957 sold under the brand
names, ‘‘Pabst Blue Ribbon Beer and Ale’’, ‘‘Pabst Old
Tankard Ale’’ and ‘‘ Andeker Beer’’ in 48 States and in the
District of Columbia, and under the brand names ‘‘East-
[fol. 15] side Beer’’, ‘‘ Eastside Old Tap Lager’’, and ‘‘Old
Mission Beer’’ in six Western States. Pabst in the course
of its business has been and is now selling beer in a con-
tinuous flow in interstate commerce.
9. Prior to the acquisition hereinafter alleged, Blatz
owned and operated a brewery located in Milwaukee, Wis-
consin. In 1957 beer produced by Blatz in this brewery was
sold, principally under the brand name ‘‘Blatz Pilsner’’,
in 38 States and in the District of Columbia. Blatz in the
24
course of its business sold beer in a continuous flow in inter-
state commerce.
10. In general, beer is distributed to retail outlets by
local wholesalers who purchase the beer from brewing
companies, Prior to the acquisition hereinafter described
in paragraph 19, in many areas beer brewed by Pabst
and beer brewed by Blatz were distributed by different
wholesalers. Some wholesalers who distributed beer brewed
by Pabst and some wholesalers who distributed beer brewed
by Blatz also distributed other brands of beer.
11. Pabst in 1957 sold a total of approximately 2,593,223
barrels of beer and was the 9th largest seller of beer in
the United States. In 1957 Blatz sold a total of approxi-
mately 1,271,378 barrels of beer and ranked 18th in volume
of sales among United States brewers. The combined 1957
sales of both Pabst and Blatz were exceeded by only four
other brewers in the United States.
12. Prior to the acquisition hereinafter alleged, beer
produced by Pabst under the brand names listed in para-
graph 8 above was sold in competition with beer pro-
duced by Blatz under the brand name ‘‘Blatz Pilsner’’
in each of the sections of the country in which both Pabst
and Blatz brands were sold. These brands were also sold
in competition with the brands of beer produced by other
brewers which were sold in these areas.
{fol. 16] 138. In 1957, 735,978 barrels of ‘Pabst Blue Rib-
bon Beer and Ale’’, ‘* Pabst Old Tankard Ale’? and ‘‘An-
deker Beer’’, approximately 33% of the total sales of these
brands, were sold within a three state area encompassing
the States of Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin, and 341,779
barrels, or approximately 15% of total sales of the above
named brands were sold in the State of Wisconsin alone. In
that year 831,527 barrels of Blatz-brewed beer, approxi-
mately 65% of that company’s total sales, were sold in such
three state area, and 392,722 barrels, or approximately 31%
of total sales of beer brewed by Blatz were sold in the State
of Wisconsin alone.
14. Total 1957 sales of beer by all brewers in the three
state area encompassing Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin
amounted to 14,219,516 barrels. The sales in this area
of beer produced by Pabst and Blatz, as set forth in para-
graph 13 above, accounted for 5.2% and 5.8% respectively
of this total. The combined sales of beer brewed by
25
Pabst and Blatz thus amounted to 11% of said total and
were exceeded only by the sales of beer brewed by the
Stroh Brewery Company whose 1957 sales acounted for
11.5% of the total.
15. In the year 1957, there were 38 breweries operating
within the State of Wisconsin, a greater number than in
any other State. Of these breweries only five, including
the Pabst and Blatz breweries, produced more than 250,000
barrels of beer, while 30 breweries produced less than
100,000 barrels each.
16. Within the State of Wisconsin, 1957 sales of beer by
all brewers amounted to 5,066,690 barrels. The 1957 Wis-
consin sales of beer brewed by Pabst and Blatz, as set
forth in paragraph 13 above, amounted to 11.1% and 12.8%
respectively of this total. The combined sales of beer
brewed by Pabst and Blatz thus accounted for 23.9% of
total Wisconsin beer sales, compared with 12.1% of the total
accounted for by sales of beer brewed by Theo. Hamm
Brewing Company, the next largest company in volume
of sales within the State.
{fol.17] 17, Malt, a primary ingredient in the brewing
process, is produced by Pabst for use in its own breweries
and for use in the manufacture of other products. Prior
to the acquisition hereinafter alleged, Blatz purchased
its requirements of malt from outside suppliers. In 1957
Blatz’ malt purchases amounted to approximately $1,957-
197.
18. Subsequent to the acquisition hereinafter alleged,
Pabst discontinued operation of the former Blatz brewery.
Pabst now produces ‘Blatz Pilsner’’ in some or all of the
breweries which it operated prior to said acquisition.
Offense Charged
19. On or about July 30, 1958, Pabst acquired the
assets and business of Blatz for $11,000,000 in cash, $3,500-
000 in debentures, 200,000 shares of the common capital
stock of Pabst, and a common stock purchase warrant for
an additional 35,000 shares of Pabst’s common capital stock.
The effect of this acquisition may be substantially to lessen
competition or to tend to create a monopoly in the pro-
duction and sale of beer in the United States and in
various sections thereof, including the State of Wisconsin
26
and the three state area encompassing Wisconsin, Illinois
and Michigan, in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act
in the following ways among others:
(a) Actual and potential competition between Pabst
and Blatz in the sale of beer has been eliminated ;
(b) Actual and potential competition generally in
the sale of beer may be substantially lessened;
(c) Blatz has been eliminated as an independent
competitive factor in the production and sale of beer;
(d) The acquisition alleged herein may enhance
Pabst’s competitive advantage in the production and
sale of beer to the detriment of actual and potential
competition ;
(e) Industry-wide concentration in the sale of beer
will be increased.
90. The offense alleged in this complaint is continuing
and will continue unless the relief hereinafter prayed
for is granted.
[fol. 18] Prayer
Wherefore, Plaintiff prays:
1. That the acquisition by Pabst described in paragraph
19 above of the assets and business of Blatz be adjudged to
be in violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act.
9. That under such terms and conditions as this court
may prescribe, defendant Pabst be required to divest itself
of all business and assets of Blatz.
3. That under such terms and conditions as this court
may prescribe, defendants Schenley and Val be required to
divest themselves of all Pabst common capital stock which
was received for the assets and business of Blatz and that
said defendants be enjoined from exercising any rights
under the common stock purchase warrant for 350,000
shares of Pabst common capital stock also received for
caid assets and business of Blatz.
4. That the plaintiff have such other and further relief
as this court may deem just and proper in order to restore
the assets and business acquired from Blatz by Pabst
as an independent competitive factor in the production
and sale of beer.
27
5. That pursuant to section 15 of the Clayton Act an
order be made and entered herein requiring defendant
Schenley to be brought before the court in this proceeding
and directing the Marshal of the Southern District of
New York to serve summons upon it.
6. That pursuant to section 15 of the Clayton Act an order
be made and entered herein requiring defendant Val to be
brought before the court in this proceeding and directing
the Marshal of the Western District of Wisconsin to serve
summons upon it.
[fol.19] 7. That the plaintiff recover the costs of this suit.
/s/ Alan S. Ward. /s/ Robert A Hammond III,
Attorneys, Department of Justice. /s/ Earl A.
Jinkinson. /s/ Dorothy Hunt, Attorneys, Depart-
ment of Justice Midwest Office, Antitrust Division
Chicago, Illinois
/s/ William P. Rogers, Attorney General. /s/ Robert
A. Bicks, Acting Assistant Attorney General. /s/ George
D. Reycraft, Attorney, Department of Justice. /s/ Ed-
ward G. Minor, United States Attorney.
[fol.20] In tHe Unrrep States District Court FoR THE
Eastern District or Wisconsin
Unrtrev States or America, Plaintiff,
vs.
Passt Brewrnc Company, ScHen.ey Inpustries, Inc.,
Tue Vat Corporation, Defendants.
No. 59-C-215
Memoranpum Decision—April 7, 1960
On October 1, 1959, the plaintiff, United States of Amer-
ica, filed its complaint against the defendants, Pabst Brew-
ing Company, Schenley Industries, Inc., and The Val Cor-
poration, alleging that the acquisition by Pabst on or about
July 30, 1958 of all the assets and business of Val, formerly
Blatz Brewing Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
28
Schenley, was violative of $7 of the Clayton Act, Title 15
U.S.C. §18. The plaintiff asked that the court adjudge the
acquisition to be in violation of §7, that Pabst be required
to divest itself of the business and assets of Blatz, that
Schenley and Val be required to divest themselves of all
Pabst stock and enjoined from exercising any rights under
stock purchase warrants received for the assets and busi-
ness of Blatz, and that the plaintiff have such other relief
as the court deems proper to restore the assets and business
acquired from Blatz by Pabst as an independent competi-
tive factor in the production and sale of beer. Both Schen-
ley and Val have filed motions for summary judgments of
dismissal as to them.
The agreement of sale which gave rise to this proceeding
was executed by Pabst, Blatz and Schenley on or about J uly
[fol. 21] 30, 1958. Under the agreement, Pabst purchased
the assets and business of Blatz for $11,000,000 in cash,
$3,500,000 in debentures, 200,000 shares of Pabst common
capital stock and a stock purchase warrant for 350,000
shares of Pabst common capital stock. The agreement was
executed less than two weeks after a letter was sent from
the Anti-Trust Division of the Department of Justice to
the President of Blatz requesting information concerning
the then proposed sale and stating that the acquisition of
Blatz by Pabst raised certain questions under the anti-
trust laws.
After the sale, Blatz changed its corporate name to the
Val Corporation and was thereafter dissolved under the
laws of Wisconsin effective on or about September 2, 1958.
Its net assets, including most, if not all, of the consideration
received by it from Pabst, were distributed to its sole stock-
holder, Schenley. Schenley has =< iuterest in Pabst, except
as holder of the stock and stock purchase warrant received
by Blatz as partial consideration for the sale to Pabst and
and subsequently distributed to Schenley upon the dissolu-
tion of Val.
The movants argue first that their joinder as parties
defendant is improper since the complaint charges no
violation by them of §7 of the Clayton Act or of any
other law. The Government concedes that the movants have
been charged with no offense, but contends that they are
proper parties to this proceeding for the purposes of
relief.
RI TREC Lk NRIs SNR RPT IBS AB TEI NMC AO
29
In a proceeding under §7 of the Clayton Act, the court has
authority to grant relief not only against parties who are
found to have violated that section, but also against other
parties if such relief is necessary to eliminate the effects
of an acquisition offensive to the statute. United States v.
E. I. DuPont. De Nemours and Company (1959) (N. D.
Ill., E. D.) 177 F. Supp. 1. All parties against whom
relief may be granted may properly be joined as parties
defendant.
{fol.22] The movants have admitted, albeit reluctantly,
that neither of them would have to assume the burden of
preparing for or participating in a trial of the merits. That
either or both of them may elect to have an observer present
at the trial is a matter for their own determination and
is not entitled to consideration as a form of hardship.
Neither of the movants are strangers to the transaction
which gave rise to this proceeding. Both were parties
to the agreement of sale entered into on or about July 30,
1958. Both proceeded to a consummation of the sale with
full knowledge of the fact that the Anti-Trust Division of the
Department of Justice proposed to make a study of whether
the transaction involved any violation of the anti-trust laws.
The consideration for the sale of the assets and business
of Blatz went to Blatz, now Val, and most if not all, of
it was distributed to Schenler. Schenley still holds the
stock and stock purchase warrants of Pabst which were
part of the consideration for the sale. Because of the
movants’ close connection with the transaction here com-
plained of, it is our opinion that, should the plaintiff pre-
vail, some relief might be granted against them, and that
they should be retained as parties pending determination of
the relief, if any, to be granted.
The movants have further argued that they are not
proper parties because should the court find that the
acquisition of Blatz by Pabst was unlawful, no conceivable
relief could now be granted against them, which would
eliminate the effects of that acquisition. We believe that
that argument is premature at this stage of the proceeding,
and that the question of whether any vffective relief can
be granted against the movants must await the determina-
tion of the substantive issues.
The motions of the defendants, Schenley Industries,
30
Inc. and The Val Corporation for summary judgments of
dismissal as to them are denied.
Dated, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 7th day of April, 1960.
Robert E. Tehan, i’. 8. District Judge.
[{fol. 23] [File endorsement omitted]
Ix tHe Unirep States District Court FoR THE Eastern
District or WISCONSIN
No. 59-C-215
[Title omitted]
Orper Denyinc Motions or DeFENDANTS, ScHENLEY InpDUvus-
tries, Inc. AND THE VAL CORPORATION FOR Summary J upe-
MENTS oF Dismissat—April 7, 1960
The defendants, Schenley Industries, Inc. and The Val
Corporation, having filed motions for summary judgments
of dismissal as to them, and briefs and affidavits in support
of and in opposition to said motions having been filed, and
a hearing on said motions having been held, and the court
having considered the pleadings, motions, affidavits and
briefs, and the arguments of the parties, and being fully in-
formed, and having this day filed its Memorandum Decision,
Now, Therefore, It Is Ordered: That the motions of the
defendants, Schenley Industries, Inc. and The Val Corpora-
tion, for summary judgments of dismissal as to them be and
the same are hereby denied.
Dated, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 7th day of April, 1960.
Robert E. Tehan, U. S. District Judge.
————————————————————
[fol. 24] [File endorsement omitted]
In tHe Unrrep Srates District Court ror THE EasTERN
District or WISCONSIN
No. 59-C-215
[Title omitted]
ANSWER OF Derenpant Passt Brewinae Company—
Filed April 15, 1960
Answering * the complaint as supplemented by Plaintiff’s
More Definite Statement filed January 27, 1960 with Respect
to Paragraph 17 of the Complaint defendant, Pabst Brew-
ing Company:
Jurisdiction and Venue
1. Admits that the complaint was filed and this action
was instituted against defendant under the Act of Congress,
commonly known as the Clayton Act, but denies that defend-
ant has violated, is violating, or threatens or intends to
violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.A. Section 18,
and denies that plaintiff is entitled to the relief, or any
part thereof, prayed for in the complaint.
2. Admits that it transacts business and is found within
the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Defendants
3. Admits that it is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal
office in Chicago, Illinois.
4. Admits that Schenley Industries, Inc. (hereinafter
referred to as ‘‘Schenley’’), is a corporation organized and
[fol. 25] existing under the laws of the State of Delaware,
with an office in New York City, New York. '
5. Denies that Val Corporation (hereinafter referred to
* Each numbered paragraph of this answer corresponds
with and is addressed to the averments contained in the
like numbered paragraph of the complaint or of Plaintiff’s
More Definite Statement.
32
as ‘‘Val’’) is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Wisconsin.
6. Admits that subsequent to the acquisition of the assets
and business of Blatz Brewing Company (hereinafter re-
ferred to as ‘‘Blatz’’) by this defendant, Blatz, a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Schenley, changed its corporate name
to Val. Admits that Pabst Sales Co., a wholly owned sub-
sidiary of this defendant amended its corporate charter
and changed its name to Blatz Brewing Company, and was,
on February 27, 1959, merged into this defendant.
Trade and Commerce
7. Avers that the production of beer on a commercial
scale was reinstituted in the United States on April 7,
1933 following enactment of the Cullen-Harrison Act.
Admits that during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1935
there were approximately 750 premises operated as brew-
eries in the United States and that during the fiscal year
ended June 30, 1958 there were approximately 252 premises
operated as breweries in th United States. Avers that
it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to whether this decrease in numbers occurred ‘‘through
merger, consolidation and natural attrition’’ or otherwise.
Avers that during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1935
United States breweries produced 45,228,605 barrels of
fermented malt liquor (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘beer’’),
and that during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1958,
89,010,812 barrels of beer were produced in the United
States. Avers that the figures of 42,782,378 and 84,790,791
barrels set forth in paragraph 7 of the complaint represent
total tax paid and tax-free withdrawals of beer from pro-
duction for sale or distribution during said years and not
[fol. 26] the production of beer. Admits that on the basis
of unofficial figures published by various trade journals
25 companies accounted for approximately 69 per cent of
total taxpaid withdrawals of beer during 1957. (Through-
out this answer references to years are calendar years
unless specifically stated otherwise.)
8, Admits that it owns and operates breweries located in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Peoria Heights, Tlinois; Newark,
New Jersey; and Los Angeles, California, and that it sold
beer produced in these breweries during 1957 under one or
33
more of the brand names ‘‘Pabst Blue Ribbon and Ale,’’
‘*Pabst Old Tankard Ale’’ or ‘‘Andeker Beer’’ in the 48
States and in the District of Columbia. Admits that it
sold beer produced in these breweries during 1957 under
the brand names ‘‘ Eastside Beer’’ or ‘‘Old Mission Beer’?
in six western states, and under the brand name ‘‘ Eastside
Old Tap Lager’’ in three midwestern states, and that it
has sold and is now selling beer in interstate commerce.
9, Admits that prior to the acquisition alleged in the
complaint, Blatz owned and operated a brewery in Mil-
waukee, Wisconsin, and that during its fiscal year ended
August 51, 1957 Blatz sold beer produced in this brewery
under the name ‘‘Blatz Pilsner’’ in 38 States and in the
District of Columbia, and that in the course of its business
Blatz sold beer in interstate commerce.
10. Admits that, prior to the acquisition alleged in the
complaint, in some areas beer brewed by Blatz and beer
brewed by Pabst were distributed by different wholesalers.
Admits that some wholesalers who distributed beer brewed
by Pabst and some wholesalers who distributed beer brewed
by Blatz, also distributed other brands of beer.
11, Admits that in 1957 it sold approximately 2,593,223
barrels of beer. Denies that in 1957 Blatz sold 1,271,378
barrels of beer, but avers that said sales were approximately
(fol. 27] 1,241,709 barrels. Admits that on the basis of
unofficial figures published by various trade journals,
Pabst in 1957 was the ninth largest seller of beer in the
United States, and Blatz ranked eighteenth in volume of
sales among the United States brewers. Admits that adding
together sales of Pabst and Blatz for 1957, the total was
exceeded by sales of four other brewers in the United States.
12, Admits that, prior to the acquisition alleged in the
complaint, beer produced by Pabst under one or more of the
brand names listed in paragraph 8 of the complaint was sold
in 38 States and the District of Columbia where ‘*Blatz
Pilsner’’ was also sold. Admits that brands of beer pro-
duced by other brewers were also sold where the Pabst and
Blatz brands of beer were sold.
13. Avers that in 1957, 776,885 barrels of Pabst Blue
Ribbon Beer and Ale, Pabst Old Tankard Ale and Andeker
Beer, or approximately 29.9% of the total sales of Pabst
brewed beer, were sold in the three-state area encompassing
Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin, and that 340,378 barrels,
34
or approximately 13.1% of such total sales, were sold in
Wisconsin in 1957. Avers that 827,111 barrels of Blatz
brewed beer or approximately 66.7% of Blatz total sales,
were sold in the states of Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin;
that 388,679 barrels, or approximately 31.3% of such total
sales, were sold in Wisconsin in 1957. Avers that less than
42% of the total sales of both Blatz brewed beer and
Pabst brewed beer during 1957 were made in those three
States and that less than 20% of such sales were in Wis-
consin in 1957. Denies that the aforesaid states, or any
one or more of them have any competitive significance as
market areas for sale of beer, and denies that said states
or any one or more of them constitute a relevant market area
or constitute a ‘‘section of the country’’ as such words
are used in Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.A.
Section 18.
14. Avers that total 1957 sales of beer in Illinois, Wis-
consin and Michigan by u!! brewers amounted to 14,227,720
(fol. 28] barrels of beer, and that sales in such states by
Pabst and Blatz accountea for 5.5% and 5.8%, respectively,
of this total, or a total percentage of 11.3%. Admits that
the total sales of beer of both Pabst and Blatz in Illinois,
Michigan and Wisconsin were exceeded by sales in said
States of approximately 1,629,704 barrels of beer brewed by
the Stroh Brewing Company. Avers that in Illinois in
1957, 1958 and 1959 the total sales of beer brewed by
both Pabst and Blatz were exceeded by sales of beer pro-
duced by Anheuser-Busch, Inc. and by Joseph Schlitz Brew-
ing Company; and during 1958 and 1959 by sales of Theo-
dore Hamm Brewing Co. and Falstaff Brewing Co.; and
that in Michigan in 1957 the total sales of both Pabst
and Blatz were exceeded by sales of beer produced by
Stroh Brewing Company, by Goebel Brewing Company, by
Pfeiffer Brewing Company and by Drewrys, Ltd. U.S.A.
Denies that the aforesaid states, or any one or more of
them, have any competitive significance as market areas
for sales of beer, and denies that said states or any one or
more of them constitute a relevant market or constitute a
‘section of the country’’ as such words are used in Section
7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.A., Section 18.
15. Admits that in 1957 there were 38 breweries operating
ir Wisconsin which were more breweries than were operated
in any other single State; avers that the 1957 report of
35
the Wisconsin Department of Taxation indicates that
five Wisconsin breweries, including the Pabst and Blatz
breweries, produced over 250,000 barrels of beer during
1957; eight breweries produced over 100,000 barrels of
beer; and that 30 breweries produced less than 100,000
barrels.
16. Avers that in the state of Wisconsin in 1957 sales of
beer by all brewers as reported by the Wisconsin Depart-
ment of Taxation amounted to 3,066,690 barrels and that
11,445,308 barrels of beer were produced by Wisconsin
breweries in that year. Avers that during 1957 388,679
(fol. 29] barrels of Blatz beer and 340,378 barrels of Pabst
beer were sold in Wisconsin and that the total sales of
Blatz and Pabst in Wisconsin amounted to 6.4% of the
beer produced in Wisconsin in 1957. Admits on the basis
of the aforesaid reports, that beer brewed by Pabst and
Blatz amounted to 11.1% and 12.7 %, respectively, of total
Wisconsin sales by all brewers, or a total percentage of
23.8% of such sales in 1957. Admits on the basis of the
aforesaid sources that beer brewed by Theodore Hamm
Brewing Company outside the state of Wisconsin accounted
for 12.1% of said sales, and avers that beer brewed by
brewers outside Wisewnsin and sold in Wisconsin accounted
for 22.7% of said total sales in Wisconsin. Denies that
the aforesaid State has any competitive significance as a
market area for sales of beer, and denies that the aforesaid
State constitutes a relevant market or constitutes a ‘‘Section
of the country’’ as such words are used in Section 7 of the
Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.A., Section 18.
17. Admits that malt is a primary ingredient in the
brewing process and is produced by Pabst for use in its
breweries, and for use in the manufacture of other products.
States that the quality and composition of malt used to brew
beer is of vital importance to every brewer including Pabst.
Avers that unless the quality and composition of malt are
carefully controlled and checked by the brewer, brews will
not be uniform and the particular flavor and quality of
the brand of beer being brewed will be adversely affected.
Avers that other brewers as well as Pabst produce their own
malt for use in their own products. Avers that Pabst malt
is not used by Pabst for brewing all brands of beer brewed
by Pabst, but that for certain brands, different types of
malt produced by other malt suppliers which have different
Barer ensmesat
36
characteristics than Pabst malt are used. Answering Plain-
tiff’s More Definite Statement filed herein January 20, 1960:
(1) Admits that prior to the acquisition alleged in
the complaint Blatz purchased malt from suppliers and
(fol. 30) states that in 1957 its malt purchases amounted
to approximately $2,105,000.
(2) Admits that prior to the acquisition alleged in
the complaint Pabst produced malt in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin and in Peoria, Illinois. Avers that at all
times prior to the acquisition alleged in the complaint
Pabst purchased malt from other suppliers. Avers
that its need for malt varied with the needs of its
breweries and that from time to time prior to the
acquisition alleged in the complaint its malt capacity
was inadequate to supply its own needs.
(3) Denies that since the acquisition alleged in the
complaint ‘‘Blatz’’ brand beer has contained no malt
purchased from outside sources.
(4) Denies each and every allegation, averment or
inference contained in paragraph 4 of Plaintiff's More
Definite Statement.
(5) Denies each and every allegation, averment or
inference contained in paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Mure
Definite Statement.
(6) Denies each and every allegation, averment or
inference contained in paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s More
Definite Statement.
18. Admits that the Blatz brewery in Milwaukee, Wis-
consin is presently not in operation and is in a standby
condition. Admits that it now produces Blatz Pilsner in
all of its breweries.
19. Admits that on or about July 30, 1958 it acquired
the assets and business of Blatz for $11,000,000 in cash
(plus adjustments for Blatz profits from May 31 to July
31, 1958), $3,500,000 in debentures, 200,000 shares of its
common capital stock and common stock purchase warrants
for an additional 350,000 shares of such stock. Denies each
and every other allegation, averment or inference contained
{fol. 31] in paragraph 19 and the subparagraphs thereof.
Avers that after 1952 its sales and profits drastically de-
clined; that for more than two years immediately prior
37
to the acquisit‘on its sales not only continued to decline,
but it also suffered serious operating losses and that in
1958 it was faced with further critical and declining sales
and increasing losses, Avers that in the exercise of their
honest and informed judgment the Board of Directors and
manngement of the company determined that the acquisi-
tion of Blatz was the only available solution for the very
serioas financial predicament of Pabst. Avers that the pur-
pose of the acquisition was to avoid the serious consequences
which in the judgment of the Board of Directors and
management would have resulted from the continued sales
decline and increasing losses then in prospect. Avers that
the purpose and effect of the acquisition was to preserve
and promote competition and denies that its effect has been
or may be substantially to lessen competition or to tend
to create a monopoly in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton
Act.
20. Denies each and every allegation averment or in-
ference contained in paragraph 20 of the compiaint, and
that the plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief prayed for
in the prayer of the complaint.
21. Further answering, denies each and every allega-
tion, averment or inference of the complaint and of the
Plaintiff’s More Definite Statement with Respect to Para-
graph 17 of the Complaint which is not herein specifically
admitted to be true.
Prayer
Wherefore defendant, Pabst Brewing Company, prays
that the complaint be dismissed.
/s/ Ray T. McCann, 152 W. Wisconsin Avenue,
Milwaukee 3, Wisconsin. /s/ John T. Chadwell,
135 S. LaSalle Street, Chicago 3, Illinois. /s/
(fol. 32] Glenn W. McGee, 135 South LaSalle
Street, Chicago 3, Ilinois, Attorneys for De-
fendant, Pabst Brewing Company.
Snyder, Chadwell, Keck, Kayser & Ruggles, 135 South
LaSalle Street, Chicago 3, Nlinois, Of Counsel.
(fol. 33] Affidavit of Mailing omitted in printing.
{fol. 34] [File endorsement omitted]
In toe Unrrep States District Covrt ror THe Kastern
District or Wisconsin
No. 59-C215
[Title omitted]
ANSWER OF THE Derenpants ScHeNn.iey Inpustrigs, [Nc, aND
tHe Vat Corroration—Filed May 5, 1960
The defendants, Schenley Industries, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, and The Val Corporation, a dissolved Wiscon-
sin corporation, for their joint and several answer to the
complaint, say:
First Defense
The complaint does not charge these answering defend-
ants, or either of them, with any violation of law or other
offense, and it fails to state a claim against them, or either
of them, upon which relief can be granted.
Second Defense
Neither of these answering defendants is properly before
this court under or pursuant to Sec, 15 of the Clayton Act
(See. 25, Title 15 U.S.C.A.) and neither has an interest
in the controversy nor in the subject matter of the suit.
Third Defense
The granting of any relief prayed in the complaint as
against these answering defendants or either of them would
constitute a violation of rights guaranteed to them and each
of them under the Constitution of the United States, in-
cluding, without limitation, vested property rights and free-
dom to determine what lawful business to engage or not
engage in at any time.
[fol. 35] Fourth Defense
The defendant, The Val Corporation, was duly and ir-
revocably dissolved under the laws of Wisconsin and all
of its net assets distributed in liquidation to its sole stock-
holder, Schenley Industries, Inc., prior to the filing of the
complaint in this action, and it has no corporate existence,
property or personnel either for further engaging in busi-
ness of any kind or for the purpose of the imposition against
it of any relief prayed in the complaint.
Fifth Defense
No relief which could lawfully be granted against these
answering defendants or either of them upon the allegations
of the complaint could be effective in the public interest to
eliminate the alleged effects of the acquisition of the busi-
ness and assets of Blatz by Pabst, hence any relief against
these answering defendants or either of them upon such
allegations would not be remedial but punitive and im-
proper.
Sixth Defense
The plaintiff, although timely possessed of reason to be-
lieve that a sale of the assets and business of Blatz was
impending, failed to make any request or effort to delay or
prevent its consummation. After the consummation, the
plaintiff deh. ed filing its complaint for over a year after
receipt of the pertinent information requested by it, by
which time the assets involved had been irrevocably
scrambled, the product distribution organization of the
seller had disintegrated, the proceeds of the sale had passed
to Schenley (as stockholder-distributee) upon completed
corpora... dissolution and liquidation of the seller and had
been largely expended in or about the business of Schenley,
and neither of these answering defendants could be placed
in statu quo. The plaintiff’s failure and delay in this re-
spect are such as to render inequitable and unjust the grant-
ing of any relief under the complaint against these answer-
ing defendants or either of them, who are not charged in
the complaint with any offense whatever and who have but
exercised a lowful choice and right to cease from engaging
in the beer business and to sell the properties associated
therewith.
a
Seventh Defense
Answering * the allegations of the complaint (as supple-
mented by plaintiff’s more definite statement with respect
to paragraph 17 of the complaint filed on or about J anuary
27, 1960) these answering defendants say :
1, They admit that the complaint was filed and this action
was instituted against these defendants allegedly under
the Act of Congress commonly known as the Clayton Act,
but deny that these answering defendants have violated, are
violating, or are threatening or intend to violate Section 7
of said Act (Sec. 18, Title 15 U.S.C.A.) or that the com-
plaint so charges; they further deny that they are properly
in the case under Sec. 15 of said Act (Sec. 25, Title 15
U.S.C.A.) and allege that they have no interest in the con-
troversy or in the subject matter of the suit; they deny that
plaintiff is entitled to any relief prayed for in the complaint
as against them or either of them.
2-3. They admit the allegations of paragraphs 2 and 3
of the complaint, upon information and belief.
4. They admit the allegations of paragraph 4 of the com-
plaint but deny that Schenley is properly named a defend-
ant in the case.
5. They deny the allegations of paragraph 5 of the com-
plaint and allege that Val was duly and irrevocably dis-
(fol. 37] soived and all of its net assets distributed in com-
plete liquidation and that it had ceased to have corporate ex-
istence, property or personnel for the purposes of any
relief claimed against it, long before the filing of the com-
plaint in this case.
6. They admit the allegations in the first sentence of
paragraph 6 of the complaint. They admit the allegations
in the second sentence of paragraph 6 of the complaint upon
information and belief.
7-8. They are without knowledge or information suf-
*Each numbered paragraph of this Seventh Defense
corresponds with and is addressed to the averments con-
tained in the like numbered paragraph of the complaint or
of plaintiff’s more definite statement with respect to para-
graph 17 of the complaint, filed on or about January 27,
1960.
41
ficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of
paragraphs 7 and 8 of the complaint.
9-10. They admit the allegations of paragraphs 9 and
10 of the complaint.
11. Upon information and belief, they admit that Blatz
sold approximately 1,271,378 barrels of beer in 1957. They
are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of para-
graph 11 of the complaint.
12. They admit the allegations of paragraph 12 of the
complaint upon information and belief.
13-14-15-16. They are without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
of paragraphs 13-14-15 and 16 of the complaint.
17. They admit the allegations of sub-paragraph 1 of
paragraph 17 of the complaint as set forth in the plaintiff’s
more definite statement with respect to paragraph 17 of the
complaint. They are without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
of subparagraphs 2 through 6 of paragraph 17 of the com-
plaint as set forth in the plaintiff’s more definite statement
with respect to paragraph 17 of the complaint, filed on or
about January 27, 1960.
(fol. 38] 18. They are without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
of paragraph 18 of the complaint.
19. They admit the allegations in the first sentence of
paragraph 19 of the complaint, and allege that Blatz as
seller directly received the consideration for the sale. They
allege that such sale was neither in violation, nor charged
to be in violation, of Sec. 7 of the Clayton Act or of any
other law and that by reason thereof Schenley, being chiefly
engaged in the distilled spirits industry ceased from par-
ticipation in the beer industry, by corporate subsidiary or
otherwise, on terms approved by its directors in the best
interests of Schenley and its thousands of stockholders.
They further allege that after the sale they retained no in-
terest or control in the divested assets or business, had no
mutual or interlocking directors or employees with the pur-
chaser, and neither was a supplier to or buyer from the pur-
chaser. They further allege that the Pabst stock received
as part of the purchase price is subject to no limitation,
condition or understanding and that such stock is insufficient
in amount to elect a director of Pabst or carry any other
control of Pabst. They are without knowledge or infor-
mation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
remaining allegations of paragraph 19 of the complaint,
if material to these answering defendants.
20. They deny each and every allegation, averment or in-
ference in paragraph 20 of the complaint and show that the
complaint alleges no offense against them or either of them.
They deny that plaintiff is entitled to any relief prayed
against them in the complaint. They allege that the Pabst
stock and stock warrant mentioned in the complaint (Par.
19 and Par. 3 of the prayer) is valuable property (the
value of the stock warrant is predicated upon the future
since it would have no value if exercised today) received
(fol. 39] as part of the consideration for a lawful sale, and
thereafter lawfully acquired by Schenley upon the corporate
dissolution and liquidation of the seller under the laws of
Wisconsin and that any deprivation of or interference with
such property in this case would be unconstitutional. They
further allege that Val has neither corporate existence for
the imposition of injunctive relief against it in this cause nor
property nor personnel against which any such relief could
operate, and further, that neither Schenley nor Val con-
stitutionally and lawfully could be judiciously compelled in
this case to engage in the beer business.
Wherefore, the defendants Schenley Industries, Inc. and
the Val Corporation pray that the complaint against them
be dismissed.
/s/ Robert S. Marx, Roy G. Holmes, 900 Tri-State
Building, Cincinnati 2, Ohio. and Ralph M. Hoyt, 735 N.
Water Street, Milwaukee 2, Wisconsin. /s/ By Roy
G. Holmes, Attorneys for Defendants, Schenley In-
dustries, Inc. and The Val Corporation.
Of counsel:
Nicholas Wood Marx & Ginter, 900 Tri-State Building,
Cincinnati 2, Ohio.
Shea & Hoyt, 735 N. Water Street, Milwaukee 2, Wis-
consin.
[ fol. 40]
[File endorsement omitted.]
43
(fol.41] In rae Unrrep Srares Disraict Court ror THE
Eastern District or Wisconsin
Branca 1
Civil Action No. 59-C-215
Unirep Srares or America, Plaintiff,
v.
Passt Brewine Company, Scuenuey Inpustriss INc., AND
Tue Vat Corporation, Defendants.
Transcript of Proceedings Upon Pretrial Conference—
May 15, 1961
Be It Remembered that heretofeve, to-wit, commencing
on Monday, May 15, 1961, at 10:30 o’clock A.M. of said day,
the above entitled matter came on for hearing before the
Honorable Robert E. Tehan, Chief Judge of said Court,
upon the pleadings heretofore filed herein.
APPEARANCES:
Bertram M. Long, Esq. and Francis (. Hoyt, Esq., Attor-
neys, Anti-trust Division, on behalf of the United States
of America, plaintiff ;
Snyder, Chadwell, Keck, Kayser & Ruggles by John
Chadwell, Esq., Glenn W. McGee, Esq., David Nelson, Esq.,
and Ray T. MeCann, Esq. on behalf of Pabst Brewing
| fols. 42-44] Company, defendant;
Ralph M. Hoyt, Esq. on behalf of Schenley Industries,
Inc, and The Val Corporation, defendants.
{fol. 43] CoLLoguy Berwern Covrr anxp CounseEL
The Court: Well, make a statement of--we will make a
statement of what our policy is here. Now, Iam very much
in favor of the production of the names and addresses of
the witnesses with a brief description of the area in which
44
they are going to testify and the exceptions to it, and allow
this to be known to both sides.
[{fol. 44] The Court: It would seem to me here that if the
Government—the Court is willing to proceed with all efforts
needed to make available to the Government—in fact, the
Government doesn’t have to call on the Conrt, usually it
has gotten it through the Grand Jury proceedings, and the
rest of that, and other types of discovery; but then I would
think that we would then best be able to proceed, certainly
from the Court’s position. If when the Government then
is in a position, finally made an analysis of its case, it then
just points out all the witnesses, the types of proof, the
areas to be covered, then we can take that as the work
product that we want to subject to analysis. We could go
into the geographic or the relevant lines of either materials,
impact, or anything like that, I would say, and I think we
then would—both the Government and the parties and the
Court would be in much better shape then to just see how
narrow we could make this. Then there’d be a reasonable
time, that having been resolved, what the areas to be covered
are relevant to the inquiry here, then for this time of prepa-
ration, then there will be a production on the part of the
defendants for their area, and then if the Government
needs a reasonable time they will be allowed that, and
then the case ought to be in one final shape-up, and it is on.
[fol.45] Mr. Chadwell: It will save a lot of time. It is
agreeable to us, that procedure.
Mr. Long: That is agreeable.
The Court: How best can we implement that then? I
think that is for the Government now to state where—you
have been furnished considerable information as to dealers
and distributors here and the rest.
Mr. Long: Yes.
The Court: And you have been able to use, as I under-
stand, one of the agencies of the Government to make some
checks?
Mr. Long: Yes.
The Court: And where, I assume, under that procedure
you have felt that there is a reason why the attorneys have
gone out there, like a productive witness, how long would
that procedure take you to the time you, let us say, pretty
well exhausted the search or the proof?
Mr. Long: I would think on that particular phase of the
Government’s proof that we probably would have selected
our witnesses—oh, I think, maybe wade a final selection
maybe in a month or two months.
The Court: I’d rather be sure than to have to postpone
the thing.
[fol.46] Mr. Long: Mr. Hoyt points out there is still
some more work for the F.B.I. to put in—additional dis-
tributors for the F.B.L. to contact.
Mr. Chadwell: You are talking about just distributor
witnesses?
Mr. Long: We are talking about that first. We have
interviewed—the F.B.I. and our people have interviewed
a substantial number of these names which will be fur-
nished by the defendants, as the Court orders. That is
not completed yet and may be that would be two months
that it would take to complete that, and that is that phase;
and then we will select our distributor witnesses there, and |
that is that phase of the case; then
Mr. Chadwell: Complete it in 60 days?
Mr. Long: Yes, that is distributors.
The Court: I prefer you give yourself a generous time.
Mr. Long: I think 90 may be better there. It may take
a little longer to finish that. Depends upon the speed the
Bureau goes through it.
The Court: I am not interested in the time. I am think-
ing of the time at the end of which time you will have had
submitted your completed work sheet and list; that is not
only investigation but I assume analysis.
Mr. Long: Yes.
[fol.47] The Court: I assume you could have generally
the—well, we’d like pretty much close to a commitment that
these witnesses are going to be called by all odds so that it
is unnecessary for the defendants to go out and investigate
and perhaps examine them, and the rest of that, so I’d like
that, and I think it is the only way to proceed in this case.
Mr. Long: Well, I think within say three months that
we will have made a selection not only of the distributor
witnesses but our other witnesses.
The Court: What I am concerned about—I think our
46
most fruitful session will be that next one at which you
will come in here and you will have listed here a list of
witnesses, the area in which they are going to testify and
identification of any particular incidences or conditions or
the rest that they are going to take into consideration; that
is, for instance, a relationship to a brewery which is in
Wisconsin or some place, Minnesota, Dakotas, or something
like that, so that that area will be one that will be alerted to.
Mr. Long: I feel within that period of time there—I say
in fall, an early date in the fall, maybe before then—cer-
tainly try before then to have selected the witnesses, dis-
tributors, and other classes of witnesses the Government
is going to offer in trial of the case, and general nature of
[fol. 48] the proof, areas covered by the testimonial wit-
nesses, testimonial evidence, and selection also of the docu-
ments that the Government is going to offer in proof, and
I think they can submit it without bothering the Court—
they can be submitted to counsel informally, and probably
we can resolve and arrive at it without having to bother
the Court on that.
There is a problem that we have talked generally about,
and that is their statistics. This case I would think——
The Court: Let’s not get into that. I have a thought
here. What we are really doing is setting out the summer
as a time when rather substantial preparation could be
made here. Peruaps an interim report might be helpful
to you rather than for the defense to just sit and waiting
90 days now for you to give it. I suggest maybe midway
in the point that when when you have definitely established
these are the particular persons then perhaps a month or
two months, or such period, then you just establish that so
the adversary may proceed. I think that would be helpful.
Mr. Long: I think that would be agreed.
Mr. Hoyt: Like one class—all distributors.
Mr. Chadwell: If you give us names of witnesses as you
decide on them without waiting for the final decisions, as
[fol. 49] the Court has indicated, it would be helpful to us,
of course. But in addition to names of witnesses, we must
have this other information of the type that I have sug-
gested, what line of commerce are you——
The Court: I am assuming that, Mr. Chadwell.
Mr. Chadwell: Yes.
47
The Court: I thought perhaps just mark out in black
and white certain areas one, and then another hiatus there.
It occurs to me certainly within a month you are going to
have very definitely an idea that there is no question you
are going to specify these witnesses that you have already
processed. They are going to be called. Just seems to me
a disclosure at that time with a firm statement that they
are going to be called would allow the defense to go ahead.
Mr. Long: Yes, we would have some within whatever
period the Court would set.
Mr. Hoyt: Otherwise the Court and counsel prefers this
in installments?
The Court: Thut is right. Make it 30, 60 and 90 days,
and then at 90 days we will expect your whole case in.
Mr. Long: Then within that period or maybe the—maybe
at the second installment the Government then would be
prepared to state, as I understand the Court has already
[fol. 50] said, under the Government theory of the case
that would cover lines of commerce and the sections of
the country. That could be furnished. I would think that
might be something that would be worthy of a pretrial con-
ference at which time the Government then would make
known to the court the lines of commerce and sections of
the country.
Mr. Chadwell: That is satisfactory. Of course, we’d
have to get some time after that for getting into some
of these areas.
Mr. Long: Yes.
Mr. Chadwell: I suppose the Court has in mind a second
pretrial conference somewhere after the 90-day period?
The Court: Yes. It would seem to me to follow this:
The Government prepares, analyzes and then makes a dis-
closure in which they state: We are going to call these
people as witnesses. This is the description of what we
hope they will testify to, and relationship with so-and-so
breweries has been their experience; they will be able to
testify with relationship to those particular breweries,
whatever it is.
Now, then, there are some of those—when that disclosure
is made and can be made, as I indicated, at periodic times
[fol. 51] to allow you to have some grist at the mill
Mr. Chadwell: Yes.
48
The Court: (Continuing)—then you can proceed on.
But there are some that you think are so clearly outside
of what will be relevant scope that at this next pretrial
that I have, that at that time you’d want to discuss whether
or not such a witness should be allowed, that you should
not have to go to No. 1, prepare for his examination and
the rest, you’d much prefer to have the Court rule on
whether or not that isn’t clearly outside the scope and
that you will not have to prepare on it—I assume that
would be about the basis.
Mr. Long: I don’t know whether——
The Court: I am assuming you might come in here with
the names of 40 witnesses, most are executives or having
some relation to the brewery industry. You will furnish
enough identification there as to what they are going to
testify to and with the knowledge that counsel have through
their own brewery they might have some reservation as to
whether or not this could by any conceivable stretch of the
imagination be relevant here, but before going into further
discovery proceeding they would then want to have some
discussion as to whether or not under the theory here as
to whether or not they should have to go to make prepa-
ration for it.
[fol.52] Mr. Long: I would think that probably can be
worked out.
The Court: I don’t know what is going to be relevant
here. I am only surmising what I think are going to be some
of the objections.
Mr. Long: I would think it would be probably quite
helpful, your Honor, if things like that could be resolved,
either decided to be relevant or to be outside the purview
of the case there. Maybe at an early stage of the proceed-
ings like this may be a little early to arrive at that.
The Court: On that point, when we are dealing with a
little something more tangible than abstractions we can
make better rulings, and I think even before rulings I
think perhaps there can be stipulations or perhaps realiza-
tions that this is not quite——
Mr. Long: Yes.
The Court: Then we have arrived at a point where I
understand it is seemingly—it seemingly meets acceptance
that over the period of the next 90 days with leave on your
49
part to and encouragement of the Court if you can make
an interim report that you will then file or furnish to the
adversaries here a list of all of the witnesses that you pro-
pose to call in to trial of this action with a description of
[fol. 53] their testimony, the areas in which they are going
to testify to with allusion to any type of documentation,
whether it be on a statement of accounts or anything, that
reasonably the defense ought to be alerted to. What I
want is enough of a description for them to understand
just what this witness is going to testify about, the direct
and tangible matters this witness is likely to disclose. That
should arise at a point where we can have what ought to
be fruitful discussion of a half a day or so, and then at
that time we can make preparations at that time to see how
much time the defense will need to meet that; also to
present to the Court the objections they might have to what
seemingly is the type of proof that is going to be urged upon
the Court on grounds of relevancy.
Does that seemingly meet with the Government’s——
Mr. Long: That is acceptable.
The Court: Now what about the reaction of the defense?
Mr. Chadwell: Well, we are certainly agreeable to that.
I would like to ask one question, and that is whether the Gov-
ernment has in mind at this time any further discovery?
They have gotten a great mass of information from us,
and I believe at one point and perhaps the last time we
were up here the Government indicated an intention to
take some depositions.
[fol.54] Mr. Long: Yes, we have. Not a great number of
depositions, but we have some depositions we are going
to take very soon.
Mr. Chadwell: That’d be in advance of trial, you assume?
Mr. Long: I assume.
The Court: I assume within this 90-day period?
) Mr. Long: Yes.
| Mr. Chadwell: I think we ought to have names of the
proponents——
The Court: Let me i aed For clarification, it is
' Iny conception that when we establish this 90 days that the
Government has been on this case for some time and needs
only 90 days to finalize its preparations.
Mr. Long: That is right.
Derren
50
The Court: And that includes all types of preparations?
Mr. Long: That is correct.
Mr. Hoyt: That is correct.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Chadwell: I didn’t understand that, and I now do
understand it. Well, this is—that general procedure is |
certainly satisfactory to us. ;
Now, I am assuming that at the end of that 90-day period |
[fol. 55] it is not contemplated that the Government will ©
furnish to us the documents that they expect to have ready |
to put into evidence, or will you do that? 3
Mr. Long: We will certainly endeavor to do that, yes. ©
Mr. Chadwell: We ought to have a list of your exhibits, —
both statistical and other types of exhibits, you expect to ©
put in evidence, and I didn’t understand that you expect |
to have that ready.
Mr. Long: Yes. 2
The Court: I would wonder—I don’t think it is too bur- |
densome—I am willing to relax the 90 days, but I contem- ©
plated that you would by that time have completed your in-
vestigation which includes the documentation as well as the ©
live witnesses, and perhaps it’d be best—I don’t see itas too ©
burdensome—that you then produce not only the list, the ©
discription, but then also list your exhibits in relation to |
the witnesses. The Court, for good reason, will relax the —
90 days. And you are going to have one go-around on this,
but the Court at that time believes you ought to be able to
evaluate all of the written and all of the oral, and then ©
produce your documentation. If your documentation, for
instance, is going to include some exhibits, some correspond- |
ence, or even audits from the West Coast Brewery, that
ought to be made available. Do you agree?
[fol.56] Mr. Long: Yes, sir, I think it should.
The Court: Should be indemnified with that witness; is ©
that agreeable?
Mr. Long: Yes.
The Court: Ninety days?
Mr. Leng: Ninety days may not be quite sufficient.
The Court: I’d rather have it definite in this style so the
next time it can be very fruitful. It ought to be done also
sufficiently in advance of our meeting next time so that
the defense can have had a chance to evaluate it.
|
51
Mr. Chadwell: We can’t come up here and get this flood
of documents right here and make any progress.
Mr. Long: I wonder if in 90 days we could make available
to counsel this material that the Court is calling for, these
disclosures, and then some time after that giving them a
little time if we then could have a pretrial conference?
Mr. Chadwell: That is what I hoped it could be.
The Court: All right. Then as you see it, you believe we
can carry out what we have here suggested, that is, you will
have produced really the substance of the case you are going
[fol. 57] to urge upon the Court: you will be able to com-
plete your investigation, all of this discovery here, such
discovery as remains to be taken, and correlate the docu-
mentation to the witnesses and have, I assume, copies.
Can we look forward to copies?
Mr. Long: Yes, sir.
The Court: All right. If you could do that in 90 days,
then how much time would be realistically needed—all
the time I am thinking of is for an evaluation to present
your comments to the Court. You are going to be allowed
additional time.
Mr. Chadwell: Yes, sir. We will need additional time. If
you say 90 days, that is August 15.
Mr. Long: That is August 15.
[fol.58] The Court: Pardon me. You are right. I am
asking the plaintiff now to make the disclosure. I will here-
after, of course, call upon the defense to do the same thing
I am asking you to do.
Mr. Chadwell: We certainly expect to cooperate along
this line.
Mr. Long: Yes, we do, too. I don’t visualize any problem.
The area of the proof that we will furnish to them, I think
would be adequate certainly for their purposes and know
what they have to meet. I don’t anticipate there being any
trouble. This is not an awfully abstruse, I mean testimony
of a witness. I don’t expect to spend hours and hours on the
stand. I think they are affected some way with this, and
testify to it and state it.
Mr. Hoyt: Especially your distributors.
52
Mr. Long: I wouldn’t think that would be difficult to
furnish them what we hope to prove by these witnesses.
[fol. 59] The Court: So in that wise, why you might even,
under such circumstances, so describe the witness and tell
precisely all he is going to testify to. Many of them might
be accumulative and might be agreed to.
Mr. Long: Certainly we will endeavor to do that. If
there can be an agreement on statistics, we can whittle this
time so that it can no longer be denominated as a protracted
trial. We can leave to our arguments maybe all of the
voluminouses of the case—maybe.
[fol. 60] [File endorsement omitted]
In tHe Unirep States District Court FOR THE Eastern
District oF Wisconsin
Civil Action No. 59-C-215
[Title omitted]
Pre-Triat Orver No. 1—July 7, 1961
A preliminary pre-trial conference was held in this cause
on May 15, 1961 and after hearing arguments and discussion
of counsel it appeared to the Court, and the parties agreed,
that the most expeditious manner in which to handle dis-
covery and other matters now pending before the Court was
to permit the plaintiff to review its evidence and make its
choice as to the evidence and theories on which it will
rely at the trial; and that plaintiff should, upon comple-
tion of such review and having made its choice, furnish
such information to the defendants;
Therefore, It Is Ordered That:
1, Plaintiff, United States of America, is on or prior to
September 15, 1961, to complete its preparations for the
trial of its case, and on or prior to that date, to submit to
counsel for the defendant Pabst Brewing Company the
following:
(a) Names, addresses, and relationship with a brewery
or the brewing industry of all witnesses whom the
Government intends to call at the trial, together
with a description of the testimony which it is
contemplated will be given by such witnesses in-
cluding therein the aspects of the case upon which
such testimony will bear and the documents to
which it may allude;
[fol.61] (b) All documentary evidence on which
plaintiff intends to rely including statistical mate-
rial or exhibits prepared for the trial;
(c) A statement of plaintiff’s theory of the case, in-
cluding the line or lines of commerce, section or
sections of the country, and anti-competitive effects
of the acquisition which plaintiff intends to prove.
54
2. A second pre-trial conference is hereby set for October
9th, 1961 at the hour of 2:00 P.M. at which time counsel for
defendants will present to the Court any comments or
objections to the material submitted to them by the plain-
tiff in accordance with the above paragraphs of this order.
3. Plaintiff’s discovery procedures shall be completed on
or prior to September 15, 1961. As soon as possible the
plaintiff will furnish to the defendant Pabst Brewing Com-
pany the names of witnesses which it wishes to depose for
discovery purposes and arrange a schedule for such depo-
sitions.
Counsel for all parties are given leave and encouragement
to cooperate to the fullest extent in reaching agreements
and stipulations in carrying out the intent as well as the
language of the foregoing.
Enter: Robert E. Tehan, United States District
Judge.
Dated: July 9th 1961.
Agreed as to form
/s/ John T. Chadwell, Attorney for defendant Pabst ©
Brewing Company. ’
ee ee
[fol. 62]
[File endorsement omitted]
In tHe Unrrep Srates District Court ror THE EasTERN
District or Wisconsin
Civil Action No. 59 C 215
[Title omitted]
PuiarntiFr’s Response To Pre-Triuat Orper—Filed
September 18, 1961
Pursuant to the Court’s order of July 7, 1961, plaintiff
submits herewith the names and addresses of the following
additional proposed Government witnesses:
Name
Paul Kalmanovitz,
President
Maier Brewing Co.
Edmund B. Koller,
President
The Walter Brewing Co.
Tyrus R. Jones, Vice
President
Atlantic Brewing Co.
George J. Holas, President
Pilsen Brewing Co.
J. Miner Culp, President
Oertel Brewing Co.
| John G. Hoyer, Vice
President
Frank Fehr Brewing Co.
Richard C. Jones, Executive
Officer
Jackson Brewing Co.
R. Laiter Fitzsimons,
President
American Brewery, Inc.
Address
500 East Commercial Street
Los Angeles 12, California
Hickory and Le Crosse
Street
Pueblo, Colorado
1549 Fullerton Avenue
Chicago, Illinois
3043-3065 West 26th Street
Chicago, Illinois
1400 Story Avenue
Louisville, Kentucky
412 Fehr Avenue
Louisville, Kentucky
620 Decatur
New Orleans, Louisiana
1700 North Gay Street
Baltimore, Maryland
56
Name
Robert A. Schiffer, Vice
President
Goebel Brewing Co.
Joe Petz, Sales Manager
International Breweries,
Ine.
Elmo H. Bevington,
President
Matz Brewing Co.
Thomas J. Fatato,
Secretary and Sales
Manager
Eastern Brewing
Corporation
[fol. 63]
Bruce Berckmans, President
International Breweries,
Ine.
Herbert Epstein, President
Pfeiffer Brewing Co.
Paul A. White,
' Administrative Assistant
The Pilsener Brewing Co.
Philip F. Neuweiler,
President
Louis F. Neuweiler’s Sons
Brewers
Edward Fitzgerald,
Treasurer
Fitzgerald Bros. Brewing
Co.
James M. Mead, Treasurer
Fred Koch Brewery, Inc.
Marvin Bilsky, President
Cleveland Sandusky
Brewing Corp.
Address
2001 Rivard
Detroit, Michigan
1600 Fisher Building
Detroit, Michigan
210 Hickory Street
Omaha, Nebraska
334 North Washington
Street
Hammonton, New Jersey
1600 Fisher Building
Detroit, Michigan
3740 Bellevue
Detroit, Michigan
6605 Clark Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio
401 N. Front Street
Allentown, Pennsylvania
498 River Street
Troy, New York
15-25 West Courtney Street
Dunkirk, New York
2764 East 55th Street
Cleveland, Ohio
Name
B. P. Bohannon, Chairman
of Board
Standard Brewing Co.
James Amento, President
August Wagner Breweries
Joseph V. Burns, President
Eagle Brewing Co.
Joseph T, Ortlieb, President
Henry E. Ortlieb Brewing
Co.
S. C. Berg, Accountant
Gulf Brewing Co.
J. M. Delmar, Vice President
Gulf Brewing Co.
J. F. Fesenmeier, President
Fesenmeier Brewing Co.
Frank Sitterding IT,
President
Home Brewing Co.
Patrick J. Curran, President
Berlin Brewing Co.
Fred Effinger, President
Effinger Brewing Co.
Clarence Rothe, Office
Manager
Rahr Green Bay Brewing
Co.
Fred W. Huber, Treasurer
and Sales Manager
Huber Brewing Co.
Lorenz Kuenzl, Treasurer
Oshkosh Brewing Co.
Address
5801 Train Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio
605 South Front Street
Columbus, Ohio
2nd and Mulberry Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
American and Poplar
Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
5301 Polk Avenue
Houston, Texas
5301 Polk Avenue
Houston, Texas
1401 Madison Avenue
Huntington, West Virginia
1125 West Clay Street
Richmond, Virginia
277-283 Broadway
Berlin, Wisconsin
Baraboo, Wisconsin
1331 Main Street
Green Bay, Wisconsin
1208 14th Avenue
Monroe, Wisconsin
1642 Doty Street
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
58
{fol. 64]
Name Address
Richard F. Haidlinger, 1506 S. Main Street
President Oshkosh, Wisconsin
Peoples Brewing Co.
Roland J. Marx, Secretary 200 S. Walnut Street
George Walter Brewing Co. Appleton, Wisconsin
Harold B. Bloomquist, Rhinelander, Wisconsin
President —
Rhinelander Brewing Co.
David Struther, Director of Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Central Sales
Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co.
Henry Dheim, Jr., Vice West Bend, Wisconsin
President
West Bend Lithia Co.
Roy E. Kumn, President 915 S. 3rd Street
G. Heileman Brewing Co. LaCrosse, Wisconsin
Edmund C. Bloedorn, Sales Waukesha, Wisconsin
Manager
Fox Head Brewing Co.
The brewery representatives listed above will testify
that since the merger of Pabst and Blatz, they have been
or probably will be adversely affected thereby.
The following witnesses, representatives of malt pro-
ducing companies, will testify that before the merger of
Pabst and Blatz, they sold substantial quantities of barley
malt to the Blatz Brewing Company for the production
of Blatz beer. They will further testify that since the
merger they have lost most or all of this market.
Name Address
F. E. Raraty, President 141 West Jackson Boulevard
Albert Schwill & Co. Chicago, Illinois
James E. Sapp, Vice 625 Madison Avenue
President New York, New York
Standard Brands
Name Address
Harry Eikenberry, Vice 3830 W. Grant Street
President Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Froedtert Malt Corporation
Herbert Kurth, Chairman 2100 S. 43rd Street
of Board Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Kurth Malting Co.
Herbert Ladish, President 828 N. Broadway
Ladish Malting Co. Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Clarence Alt, Vice 605 Washington Street
President Manitowoc, Wisconsin
Rahr Malting Co.
C. Robert Morris, President 313 S. Water Street
Zinn Malting Co. Milwaukee, Wisconsin
[fol.65] The following are additional distributor wit-
nesses:
Name Address
George W. Betz 735 Fifth Avenue
Betz Distributing Co. Berlin, Wisconsin
James H. Hall 3 Warehouse Drive
Hall Distributing Co. Salisbury, North Carolina
Betz will testify that he has been affected by the Pabst-
Blatz merger. Hall will testify concerning the termination
of distributors.
It is expected that at trial these witnesses under subpoena
will produce sales records demonstrating a loss of business.
The plaintiff proposes to offer into evidence the deposi-
tions of Haris Perlstein and Rocco B. Bunino.
The plaintiff proposes to offer in evidence the following
documents :
The Brewers Almanac for 1960.
Modern Brewery Age—Blue Book Issue—1961.
Agreement dated July 30, 1958 between Blatz Brewing
Company. Pabst Brewing Company, and Schenley Indus-
tries, Inc.
PUB tinea eesecemmanscetasnamecnssistce,
60
Annual reports of Pabst Brewing Company for the years
1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, and 1960.
Minutes of meeting of the executive committee of the
board of directors of Pabst Brewing Company held on June
25, 1958; minutes of meeting of the board of directors of
Pabst Brewing Company held on June 27, 1958; minutes
directors of Pabst Brewing Company held on July 21,
1958; minutes of meeting of the board of directors of Pabst
Brewing Company held on July 21, 1958.
All answers to plaintiff’s interrogatories to Pabst Brew-
ing Company and all documents produced by Pabst pur-
suant to plaintiff’s motion to produce.
In addition to the above documents, the plaintiff intends
at trial to introduce other documents which will be obtained
by subpoena duces tecum in support of the testimony of
witnesses hereinbefore listed.
[fol.66] It is contemplated that the plaintiff and the de-
fendant Pabst will enter into stipulations with respect to
certain statistical material relating to beer sales, production,
consumption, withdrawals, etc. The plaintiff proposes to
offer certain charts in evidence which will be based on the
stipulated statistics as well as statistics contained in The
Brewers Almanac, Modern Brewery Age, and defendants’
answers to plaintiff’s interrogatories.
The plaintiff advises that the theory of the case is that
the acquisition by the Pabst Brewing Company of the Blatz
Brewing Company has substantially lessened competition in
the beer industry and has created a reasonable probability
that competition will be affected. The plaintiff contends
as follows:
(a) That the State of Wisconsin, the three-State area
of Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan, and the con-
tinental United States as a whole comprise various
sections of the country where competition has been
affected ;
(b) That prior to the merger of Pabst and Blatz, the
defendant Pabst and the Blatz Brewing Company
were in competition in the various sections of the
country hereinabove defined ;
(c) That in the State of Wisconsin, Pabst is tending
towards monopoly by increasing its relative posi-
of meeting of the executive committee of the board of —
Se Te en ae ee eee ee
61
tion in that market; that it presently accounts for
approximately 32 per cent of all sales of keg beer
and approximately 22 per cent of all sales of case
beer in the State, or a total of about 26 per cent
of all beer sales in the State;
(d) That in other sections of the country defined here-
inabove the merger has adversely affected other
breweries or may have such an affect, and may
tend to create a monopoly;
(e) That there has been for many years a continual
decline in the number of breweries operating in
the United States;
(f) That since the merger, many beer distributors have
been terminated, or threatened to be terminated,
[fol.67] and separate Pabst and Blatz distribu-
torships have been combined, all to the injury of
the canceled distributors and to the elimination of
competition in the sale and distribution of beer;
(g) That manufacturers of malt used in the brewing
of beer who before the merger sold barley malt
to the Blatz Brewing Company have been deprived
of a substantial market inasmuch as the malt re-
quirements of Blatz are provided for by Pabst to
the injury of these maltsters and in elimination
of competition in the sale of malt.
| The plaintiff reserves the right before trial to add the
names of additional witnesses, additional documents, tabu-
lations, and charts on the basis of newly acquired evidence.
/s/ Karl A. Jinkinson, /s/ Bertram M. Long. /s/
Francis C. Hoyt. /s/ Dorothy M. Hunt, Attor-
neys, Department of Justice, Room 404, United
States Courthouse, Chicago 4, Illinois, WEbster
9-2395
(fol. 68] Proof of service omitted in priniing.
62
[fol. 69] [File endorsement omitted]
In tHe Unitep States District Court ror THE HasTERN 4
District or WISCONSIN
No. 59-C-215
[Title omitted]
Orver Fottowine Pre-Triat Conrerence—November 22,
1961
The parties having appeared by their respective counsel ~
at a pre-trial conference in the above matter, held pursuant ~
to notice, on November 20, 1961, and said counsel having -
so agreed, Pe:
It Is Ordered: That the subsequent course of this action ©
shall be governed by the following stipulations unless mod-
ified by the court to prevent manifest injustices ;
1. Paragraph 1 (a) of the pre-trial order of July 7, 1961 ©
provided in part that the plaintiff would submit to counsel ©
for the defendant, Pabst Brewing Company, a listing of ©
the names and addresses of all witnesses the plaintiff intends ©
to call at the trial together with a description of each wit- ”
ness’s relationship with a brewery or the brewing in- 4
dustry and of the testimony which the witnesses were ex- ©
pected to give at the trial. The plaintiff has thus far _
furnished the following information with respect to that
provision :
A. The names and addresses of twenty-two proposed
witnesses ‘‘who were formerly distributors for either
Pabst or Blatz who will testify that they lost their distri- ”
bution franchise after the merger of Pabst and Blatz and |
have encountered hardships and difficulties in finding
adequate replacement for the line they lost.’’ &
[fol. 70] B. The names and addresses of two additional
distributor witnesses one of whom ‘‘will testify that he
has been affected by the Pabst-Blatz merger’ and one
of whom ‘‘will testify concerning the termination of dis-
tributors.’’
C. The names and addresses of thirty-nine proposed wit-
nesses and a description of their connection with named
63
breweries as officers or employees together with a statement
that they ‘‘will testify that since the merger of Pabst and
Blatz, they have been or probably will be adversely affected
thereby.’’
D. The names of seven malt producing company rep-
resentatives who ‘‘will testify that before the merger
of Pabst and Blatz, they sold substantial quantities of
barley malt to the Blatz Brewing Company for the produc-
tion of Blatz beer’’ and ‘‘that since the merger they have
lost most or all of this market.’’
In addition to the above information, the plaintiff will fur-
nish to counsel for the defendant Pabst Brewing Company,
the names and addresses of all distributors, brewing com-
pany and malt company witnesses interviewed by the F.B.L.,
a description of records which the plaintiff will intro.
duce in evidence to support the testimony of the witnesses
it proposes to call, and a factual description of the nature of
the testimony of such witnesses.
2. The plaintiff will specify those portions of The Brewers
Almanac for 1960 and Modern Brewery Age—Blue Book
Issue—1961, upon which it will rely at the trial.
3. It is understood that the plaintiff has listed all docu-
mentary evidence upon which it intends to rely except
such documents as belong to witnesses referred to in Para-
graph 1 hereof.
[fol.71] 4. The plaintiff agrees that the line of commerce
allegedly affected by the merger involved herein is the
beer industry.
5. The plaintiff will frrnish the information required
in Paragraphs 1 and 2 hereof not later than January 10,
1962.
6. A further pre-trial conference will be held in this case
on January 15, 1962, at 2:00 o’clock P. M.
Dated, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 22nd day of N ovember,
1961.
Robert E. Tehan, U. 8. District Judge.
[fol.72] [File endorsement omitted. ]
a
64
>
[fol.73] In THe Unrrep States District Court FoR THE
Eastern District or WIscoNnsIN
Civil Action No. 59-C-215
[Title omitted]
Puarntirr’s FurtHer Response To Pre-Truat Orper—Filed
January 11, 1962
The plaintiff responds to paragraph 1D of ‘‘Order Fol-
lowing Pre-Trial Conference, dated November 22, 1961”
submitting the following:
1. List of Persons Interviewed by the FBI
Name Address Type
William E. Fitzgerald, Jr., President 498 River Street Brewery &
Fitzgerald Brothers Brewing Co. Troy, New York Distributor
Frank W. Dunhars. Roeriany 410 Central Avenue Brewery
Hedrick Brewing Company, C. Albany, New York
Benedict F. Haberle, President 500 Butternut Street Brewery
Haberle Congress Brewing Co., Inc. Syracuse, New York
Walter J. Matt, President 811 Edwards Street Brewery |
West End Brewing Company Utica, New York |
John H. Lawlor, President 610 Jay Street Brewery |
Utica Brewing Company Utica, New York |
Robert L. Best 379 Hunt Street Distributor
Best Dis. ributing Company Watertown, New York |
Thomas McCabe, Treasurer 630 Seventh Avenue Distributor
John J. Boland Distributors, Inc. Troy, New York
Joseph Bavaso, General Manager Troy, New York Brewery &
Fitzgerald Bros. Brewing Company Distributor
John J. Bioty, President 26 Allen Street Distributor
B & B Beverages, Inc. Rutland, Vermont
Alvin M. Cioffi, Treasurer 26 Allen Street Distributor
B & B Beverages, Inc. Rutland, Vermont
R. L. Randolph, President 354 Peters St., S.W. Distributor
All State Beer, Inc. Atlanta, Georgia
Marion Elmo Newlin 618 Broad Street Distributor
Valley Distributing Company LaGrange, Georgia
Dozier M. Williams 1330 Sixth Avenue Distributor
Southern Wholesale Jobbing Co. Columbus, Georgia
(fol. 74]
Robert T. Burgess, Gen. Manager Athens, Georgia Distributor
Northeast Sales Distributing, Inc. ‘
Name
Francis D. McNamara, President
Globe Brewing Company
ral Manager
Cumberland Brewing Company
Queen City Brewing Company
Harry Lowe Powers, Jr.
Powers Distributors
Virginia M. Renner, Bookkeeper
Powers Distributors
M. J. Dooney, Vice President
Hampden- Breweries, Inc.
John M. Haffenreffer, Treasurer
Haffenreffer and Co., Inc.
Adolf Haffenreffer, Jr., President
Enterprise Brewing Company
James P. Holihan, President
Diamond Spring Brewery, Inc.
; Samuel E. Brown, Secretary
Dawson’s Brewery, Inc.
M. Joseph Stacey, President
Worcester Brewing Company
Carl W. Haffenreffer, Executive
Vice President
Narrangansett Brewing Co., Inc.
Arthur Epstein, Sales Manager
Brockton Wholseale Beverage Co. Inc.
William J. Hoot, Executive
Vice President
Genesee Brewing Co., Inc.
Gilbert G. Hiemenz, Vice President
William Simon Brewery
George M. Frauenheim, President
Geo. Meyer Malt & Grain Corp.
Clarence A. Hammond, President
Gohr Distributing Co., Inc.
Joseph Berman, President
Butte Brewing Company
Walter H. Jensen, President
Great Falls Breweries, Inc.
[fol. 75]
Albert M. Orr, President
Missoula Brewing Company
Leroy W. Overcash, Former President
Mountain Brewing Company
Address
327 S. Hanover St.
Baltimore, Maryland
711 N. Centre Street
Cumberland, Maryland
827 W. Washington St.
Hagerstown, Maryland
827 W. Washington St.
Hagerstown, Maryland
45-95 North Chicopee
Willimansett, Mass.
30 Germania Street
Boston, Mass.
81-91 President Ave.
- Fall
River, Mass.
50 Diamond Street
wrence, Mass.
29 Brook Street
New Bedford, Mass.
60 Ellsworth Street
Worcester, Mass.
New Depot Avenue
Cranston
Rhode Island
18-20 N. Montello St.
Brockton, Mass.
100 National Street
Rochester, New York
705 Clinton Street
Buffalo, New York
1314 Ni Street
Buffalo, New York
80 Metcalfe
Buffalo, New York
Butte, Montana
410-14th St., S.W.
Great Falls, Montana
Madison Street
Missoula, Montana
Roanoke, Virginia
Brewery
Brewery
Brewery
Distributor
Brewery
Brewery
Malt
Distributor
Brewery
Brewery
Brewery
Brewery
66
Name
Cc. Ledwell, President
C&G Company, Inc.
Mrs. Issie Elmore, Bookkeeper
C & G Bales Company, Ine.
Richard H. Hermann
Formerly Southern Wine Company
Abe Levrant, Secretary Treasurer
Canadian Ace Brewing Company
M. E. Becker, Assistant Secretary
Canadian Ace Brewing Company
H. P. Heuer, President
Peter Hand Brewery Company
Joseph P. Sieben, Vice President
Sieben’s psn Company
George A. , General Manager
Van Lm rewing Company
Frank J. Klein, Executive
Vice President
Star Union Products
Frank B. Wales, Secretary
Columbia Malting Company
Robert E. Woods, Treasurer
Albert Schwill and Company
B. 3 Sr.
ice Presiden
Malting Company
Wallace Nathaniel Haws
Mrs. Alma Young, Bookkeeper
Midwest Beer Distributors, Inc.
Harold Young, President
Midwest Beer Distributors, Inc.
Lee Coy, Owner
Lee Coy Distributing Company
John A. Hesselbrock, President
Hudepohl Brewing Company
Ambrose W. Crosby, Treasurer
Berger Brewing Company
[fol. 76]
Edward Schoenling, Jr., President
Schoenling Brewing Company
Sumner Lyon, General Manage
Central Grain & Malting oe al
Ronald E. Polen, Manage
Springfield Beer Distributing
Company, Inc
Address
1235 W. Morehead St.
Charlotte, N. C.
1235 W. Morehead St.
Charlotte, N. C.
382 Kimberly kin.
Asheville, N. C.
3950 S. Union St.
Chicago, Illinois
3950 S. Union St.
Chicago, Illinois
1000 W. North Ave.
Chicago, Illinois
1470 N. Larrabee St.
Chicago, Illinois
2415 West 21st St.
Chicago, Illinois
101 Pike Street
Peru, Illinois
141 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois
141 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois
327 S. LaSalle St.
Chicago, Illinois
119 Thompson Ave.
Ukiah, California
Commerce Park Drive
Dayton, Ohio
Commerce Park Drive
Dayton, Ohio
1900 S. Yellow Springs St.
Springfield, Ohio
40 E. MeMicken
Cincinnati, Ohio
Central Parkway &
Liberty St
Cincinnati, Ohio
1625 Central Parkway
Cincinnati, Ohio
101 S. Downing St.
Piqua, Ohio
236 Cliff Street
Springfield, Ohio
Malt
Distributor
Distributor
Distributor
Distributor
Brewery
Brewery
Brewery
Malt
Distributor
Name
Robert J. Krebs, Secretary Treasurer
Homan Beverages, Inc.
Paul A. White, Administrative Asst.
Pilsener Brewing Company
Paul MacDonald, Treasurer
Carling Brewing Company
William B. Norris, Vice President
Carling Brewing Company
T. R. Klinksick, Secretary Treasurer
Buckeye Brewing Company
R. J. Renner, President
Renner Company
E. A. Renner, Jr., Asst. Secretary
Renner Company
Richard A. Esser. Vice President
Treu House of Munch
Herman E. Gimbel, M
anager
Saltzgaber Distributing Company
Joseph E. Glynias, Manager
Coral Distributing Company, Inc.
Max Klein, President
Bloom and Klein, Inc.
Max Goldman, Vice President
Texas Wine & Liquor Company, Inc.
D. R. Turpin, Manager
Southwestern Distributing Company
Ray Frost, Secretary Treasurer
Coors Brewing Company
Howard Hosek, Office Manager
Tivoli Brewing Company
William Coors, President
Coors Brewing Company
Robert E. Steer, General Manager
Denver Beverage Sales Company
[fol. 77]
Victor Niethammer, Co-Owner
Western Distributing Company
Joe C. Montgomery
Montgomery Beverage Company
Andrew Ellis, President
Andrew Ellis Company, Inc.
Miss Reona B. Wilson, Secretary
Andrew Ellis Company, Inc.
Mrs. Henry Kozak, Vice President
Kozak Distributors, Inc.
Address
& Woodlawn Sts.
Curtis
Middletown, Ohio
6605 Clark Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio
9400 Quincy Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio
9400 Quincy Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio
1501 Michigan Street
Toledo, Ohio
203 Pike Street
Youngstown, Ohio
203 Pike Street
Youngstown, Ohio
501 High Street
Toledo, Ohio
32 South Adams St.
Mansfield, Ohio
3341 Superior Ave.
Cleveland, Ohio
619 Ch Ave., S.W.
Canton, Ohio
1322 Slocum Street
Dallas, Texsa
103 Pierce Street
Amarillo, Texas
Golden, Colorado
1342—10th Street
Denver, Colorado
Golden, Colorado
2161 Blake Street
Denver, Colorado
2065 S. Coffman Ave.
Casper, Wyoming
Cheyenne, Wyoming
1400 Weiss Street
Saginaw, Michigan
1400 Weiss Street
Saginaw, Michigan
8200 met
Hamtramck, Michi
Distributor
Distributor
Distributor
Distributor
Distributor
Distributor
Brewery
Brewery
Brewery
Distributor
Distributor
Distributor
Distributor
Distributor
Distributor
Name
Kozak, President
Haak Dutnbutors, Ine.
Harold L. Richeson, President
E & B Brewing Company
John W. Shenefield, Vice President
Stroh Brewing Company
Walter H. Geyer, Vice President
Geyer Brothers
Brothers Brewing Company
Arthur E. Mast, President
prin jose ied
Sane ctins Compan Company
Meno eden oe morro Brewing Co.
Charles F. Asst. Treasurer
H. W. Rickel and pany
Marvin K. Horner, Manager
Motor City Beer Company
John Michael Sheehan, M
liijicnaCi—=_
Cherense C. Siete, Sune
Stein Distributing Com pany
George Opfermann
c/o Beer Distributors
A. A. — Manager
Spoetzl Brewery
Richard T. Riney, President
Sterling Breweries, Inc.
Rudy Morita, President
Drewyrs ited U.S.A., Inc.
John L. Reuss, President
Centlivre Brewing Corp.
[fol. 78)
Hugh C. Beggs
Tri-State Beverage Company
Wallace P. Irwin
Gem City Beverage Company
Cyril E. Haller, Vice President
Dubois County Beverage Co., Inc.
Charles W. Bilts, President
Quality Beers, Inc.
Frank Callipo
Dick Elliott {on
Joseph N. St
DéJ we « Company
Address
Sa. Michigan
2437 Orleans
Detroit, Michigan
909 E. Elizabeth
Detroit, Michigan
425 8. Main Street
Frankenmuth, Michigan
221 E. Main Street
Sebewaing, Michigan
West Memorial Road
Houghton, Michigan
1400 First Street
Menominee, Michigan
1824 Adelaid Street
Detroit, Michigan
12 State Park Drive
Bay City, Michigan
728 McKendricke, 8.W
Grand Rapids, Michigan
1415 Belden Road
Jackson, Michigan
1490 N. Macomb 8t.
Monroe, Mi
Shiner, Texas
1301 Pennsylvania Ave.
Evansville, Indiana
Elwood Avenue
1408
South Bend, Indiana
2501 Spy Run Avenue
Fort Wayne, Indiana
320 Monroe Street
Evansville, Indiana
Frankfort, Indiana
Rural Route #3
Jasper, Indiana
1400 Canal Street
Lafayette, Indiana
601 Erie Street
Logansport, Indiana
234 K Street
Muncie, Indiana
Brewery
Distributor
Distributor
Distributor
Distributor
Distributor
Distributor
Name
Donald J. Norris
Norris Beverage Distributors
Glenn Shrum
Salem Beverage Company
R. Heintzelman, President
tend Ween Cameen
George President
Tippecanoe
q General M
C. b, Seasten, a anager
Harold President
Jax Southern
Ppa be Gots, de, Prsttens
M. K. Goets Division
Pearl Brewing Company
Elton I. Greenberg, President
Quality Distributors, Inc.
Jack Ecord, Manager
Shawnee Beer Sales Company
Columbo Massa
Massa Distributing Company
William T. Grounds
Crest Motel
ey E, , President
R. E. Spriggs Company
Reed LeVecke
The LeVecke Company
Fred N. Bower
Hastside Distributors
(fol. 79]
Eugene V. Kenned
Eastaide Distributors
John B. McClay, Secretary
McClay Distributors, Inc.
Herman H. Watts
M & W Distributing Company
John R. Blackburne
Blackburne Distributing Company
Leonard A. Tone
James E. Garner
c/o Garner Sales Company
Joe D. Holladay,
Company, Inc.
Frank Fehr Brewing Company, Inc.
Address
216 8. 16th Street
New Caatle,
309 S. Water Street
Salem, Indiana
125 8. Hill Street
South Bend, Indiana
Route #2
Winamac, Indiana
640 E. Sixth Street
Jacksonville, Florida
1087 Haines Avenue
Jacksonville, Florida
St. Joseph, Missouri
507 Eldora
Wichita, Kansas
316 East Crane St.
Topeka, Kansas
215 Commercial
Joplin, Missouri a
Wyandotte Coun
Kansas %
1443 E. Fourth St.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Blvd.
TP ae
230 8. Olive Street
Ventura, California
412 Fehr Avenue
Louisville, Kentucky
70
Name Address
Miss Lillian M President 3024 W. Broad
ee tice, ken. Louisville, Kentucky
Richard W , Vice President 601 Columbia Street
George W: Brewing Co., Inc. Newport, Kentucky
Joseph Vessler, Chief Accountant 528 W. 12th Street
International Breweries, Inc. Covington, Kentucky
Elmer Herron Route 3
c/o Elmer Herron Distributors Henderson, Kentucky
Mrs. Lillian Bookkeeper Route 3
Elmer iiien Bivotrlbutors Henderson, Kentucky
Hugh P. Mindru 1527 8. Green Street
c/jvoA&M Distributing Company Henderson, Kentucky
Paul E. Ni 18341 N.W., 39th Court
Former! N Brewing Co. Miami, Florida
etn, Sn. Wiemann
John Rickel, President 1824 Adelaid Street
H. W. Rickel & Company Detroit, Michigan
George Muras, Secretary Treasurer Fountain City,
Fountain Brewing Company Wisconsin
Thomas R. Gettelman, President Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Gettelman Brewing Corporation
2701 S. 13th Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Harold Anderson, Sales Manager 901 Marshall Street
Kingsbury Breweries Company Manitowoc, Wisconsin
[fol. 80]
Ray Meyer, President 1 Jefferson Avenue
Jacob Leinenkugel Brewing Co. Chippewa Falls, Wis.
Howard J. Ruff, General Manager Marathon, Wisconsin
Marathon City Brewing Company
John 8. Savage, Secretary & Counsel 4000 W. State Street
Miller Brewing Company Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Raymond Leder, General Manager Mineral Point, Wis.
Mineral Springs Brewing Company
Adolph Schumacker, President Potosi, Wisconsin
Potosi Brewing Company
John Breunig, Vice President Rice Lake, Wisconsin
Rice Lake Brewing Company
J. D. , General Manager Stevens Point, Wis.
Stevens Point Beverage Companies
George Walter, Secretary Treasurer Eau Claire, Wisconsin
Walter Brewing Company
Francis H. Parsons, Secretary 235 W. Galena St.
Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company Milwaukee, Wis.
Name Address
Mrs. Elsie M. Wolff, President Wausau, Wisconsin
Wausau Brewing Company
Emery FY , Vice President Marshfield, Wis.
M Company
Howard C. Hartman, President 227M Avenue
Fox Head Brewing Company Waukecbe, Wisconsin
Earl , Secretary Treasurer 227 M Avenue
Fox Heof Brewing Company Waukecbe, Wisconsin
John J. , President 137 E. Main Street
Chilton M Company Chilton, Wiscons‘a
President 741 N. Milwaukee St.
Fal Risks Uo. Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Jeanette Christianson, Office Manager 714 N. th Street
Northern Brewing Company, Inc. Superior, Wisconsin
Mrs. Alice Lenke, President 4124 N.
G. Weber Brewing Company Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Charles Walter, Jr., General Manager 459 N. Main Street
West Bend Lithia Company West Bend, Wisconsin
Don Huseby, Treasurer 651 Williamson Street
Fauerbach Renta Company Madison, Wisconsin
Robert G. Kroncke, Secretary Treas. Kewaskum, Wisconsin
L. Rosenheimer Malt and Grain Co.
George Liebich, Secretary 1608 Adams Street
Two Rivers Beverage Company, Inc. Two Rivers, Wisconsin
(fol. 81)
Robert W. Rummele, Vice President 704 S. 15th Street
Schrier Malting Company Sheboygan, Wis.
Donald Williams Route 4, Box 89C
Beloit, Wisconsin
Charles Holderness, Bookkeeper 1300 40th Street
Blackman Trucking Company Kenosha, Wisconsin
Merle Laverne Pederson 1009 8S. 4th Street
LaCrosse, Wisconsin
Herbert F. Drout 201 W.
Felker Motors Company Marshfield, Wis.
Mrs. Anna Koncke 1823 Cambridge Ave.
Sheboygan, Wis.
Mrs. Theresa Versay 2731 N. Eleventh St.
Sheboygan, Wis.
larry P. Goodall 1828 Magnolia Ave.
Janesville, Wis.
ohn Haley RR #2
Siren, Wisconsin
fyron Johnson, President 45 High Banks
ole Springs Brewing Company, Inc. St. Cloud, Wisconsin
Brewery
Distributor
Distributor
Distributor
Distributor
Distributor
Distributor
Brewery
72
Name
Robert Ostern, President
Duluth Brewery and Malting Co.
John Charles Beerhalter, President
Fitzgers Brewing Company
Alfred H. Fleckenstein, President
Ernst Fleckenstein Brewing Co.
Dale R. Johnson, Treasurer
_ Mankato Brewing
Charles Gluek, President
a Brewing Company
Minusepolia rine Co Company
Roger Schmid, President
John Hauenstein Brewing Company
red Marti, President
red. Schell Bre Brewing Company
pt i Figge, President
Theodore Hamm Brewing Company
Carlus E. Walker, Vice President
Peter Bub Brewery, Inc.
[fol. 82}
Frank N. Bauer, General Manager
Dakota Malting and Brewing om
D. A. M President
Minnesota ~— Company
Dan M , Executive
Vice Presi:
Northwestern Malting and Grain
Company
William E. Kreiner, III, Manager
William E. Kreiner & Sons
ote Russell, President
er Company
Frank Fru
Fruth Sia Company
Melvin E. Sundeen
Saratoga Distributing Company
Clarence Jetty
Clarence Jetty Beverage Distributing
Company
Joseph L. Zbacnik
Zbacnik Distributing Company
Mrs. Carol Gresczyk
North Shore Jobbing
Harold A. Mickus
City Club Beverage Company
Address
Duluth; Minnesota
Duluth, Minnesota
422 7th Street, N.W.
Faribault, Minnesota
427 Nicollet Avenue
Mankato, Minnesota
2000 Marshall St., N.E.
Minneapo!
lis, Minn.
1215 Marshall St., N.E.
Minneapolsi, Mi
inn.
1601 8. Jefferson St.
New Ulm, Minnesota
New Ulm, Minnesota
720 Payne Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota
Sugarloaf Hill
Winona, Minnesota
Bismarck, North Dakota
Cannon Falls, Minn.
Minneapolis, Minn.
Butebe a vork
427 Front Street
Brainerd, Minnesota
916 W: n
eden innesota
1002 Railroad Street
Duluth, Minnesota
2126 11th Avenue, E.
Hibbing, Minnesota
2231 Second Avenue, E.
Hibbing, Minnesota
Grand Marais, Minn.
Prior Lake, Minnesota
Brewery
Brewery
Brewery
Brewery
Maltster
Maltster
Maltster
Maltster
Distributor
Distributor
Distributor
Distributor
Distributor
Jobber
ey
73
Name Address Type
Herbert Austin Sandstone, Minnesota Distributor
Sandstone Distributing Company {
Goon Von Sloun Sauk Rapids, Minn. Distributor
Van Distributing Company
B. Wallschlager 415 First Avenue, 8. Distributor
pion oe Distributing Company Jamestown, North Dakota
ike Reck, Jr. 910 3rd Street, S.E. Distributor
—_ . Jamestown, North Dakota
David Mussafer, President Montgomery, Alabama _ Distributor
Montgomery Beverage Company
Frank E. Korby 2237 Winona Avenue Distributor
Midstate Distributing Company Montgomery, Alabama
Edward McGann, President 820 Congress Avenue Brewery
Hull Brewing Company New Haven, Conn.
Louis Gerrard, President 717 Bienville Brewery
American Brewing Company New Orleans, La.
{fol. 83]
Cyril M. Mai 2401 Tulane Avenue Brewery
Dixie Brewing Company, Inc. New Orleans, La.
Charles A. Bodine, President Fillmore & Bulson Ste. Brewery
Camden County Beverage Company Camden, New Jersey
Eric Brach, Partner 9 Ann Street Maltster
National Malting Company Patterson, New Jersey
Karl Marx, Office M 71 Warren Street Maltster
First Caramel Malting pany Patterson, New Jersey
Bruno cki, Bookkee Fillmore & Bulson Sts. Brewery
Contes Geteey Beverage a Camden, New Jersey
Karl W. Badenhausen, President 57 Freeman Street Brewery
P. Ballantine & Sons Newark, New Jersey
John E. Farrell, Vice President 57 Freeman Street Brewery
P. Ballantine & Sons Newark, New Jersey
Bernard Lavin, Comptroller 75 Belmont Avenue Brewery
G. Krueger Brewing Company Newark, New Jersey
Sidney Frankel, President 1313 Baltic Avenue Distributor
Standard Corporation Atlantic City, N. J.
Frederick Otto, Branch M Kingston, New York Distributor
Fitzgerald Brothers Brewing Company
J. Muessen, President 315 Liberty Avenue Brewery
Piel Brothers Brewing Company Brooklyn, New York
Kenneth P. Steinreich, President 1639 Third Avenue Brewery
Jacob Ruppert New York, New York
74
Name Address Type
Benjamin Hertzberg 16 West 46th Street
New York, New York
brs of:
lis Brewery of 1024 Lamberton St. Brewery
yee ming td , Inc. Trenton, New Jersey
Century Brewing Corporation 710 Washington Avenue Brewery
- Norfolk, Virginia |
Hornell Brewing Company, Inc. 1-13 Franklin St. Brewery |
sic Hornell, New York
Vice Preisdent of: |
Best Brewing Corp. 1317 Fletcher Brewery |
Chicago, Illinois |
Spearman Brewing Company Barrancas Ave. & ISt. Brew |
Pensacola, Florida wid |
Mandel R. Weiss, Chief Executive 36 Forrest Street Brewery
Officer Brooklyn, New York
Liebmann Breweries, Inc.
Stephen Lang, Esq., Attorne 36 Forrest Street Brewery
Te se Breweries, Inc. . Brooklyn, New York
Alvin E: Heutchy, Secretary and 430 Kent Avenue Brewe
General preset Brooklyn, New York
F and M Schaefer B Co.
[fol. 84]
Jacob Manowitz, Owner 60 nen ae gy peihical
Monticello Beverage Company, Inc. Monticello, New York
T. F.M Office Manager 710 Washington Ave. Brew
Century B Company Norfolk, Virginia bs
Coury, Manager 420 W. 23rd Street Distributor
ae abo Beverage Company of Norfolk, Virginia !
Norfolk
Arnold Caitham, President E. Fourth Street Brewery
Star Brewing Company Dubuque, Iowa
Peg | G. Storz, President. 1807 N. 16th Street Brewery
Brewing Company Omaha, Nebraska
Raymond Patrick D ste 2317 Queen Street Distributor
Wright Beverage Co. hg Towa
Mrs. Nadine Kahler 411 Steuben Street Distributor
City Club Distributing Co. Sioux City, Iowa
an E. Hatten Spencer, Iowa Distributor
ten Beverage Co.
Edward O. Stapela 641 Transit Street Distributor
8S & M Distributing Co. Waterloo, Iowa
William J. ease, Partner 47—25th Avenue, N. Distributor
B & B Beverage Company Clinton, Iowa
Gilbert L. mm Partner 47—25th Avenue, N. Distributor
B & B Beverage Company Clinton, Iowa
Name Address
Meyer Distributing Company Deveapore lows”
Micon none General Manager A mea ne.
‘ Schmidt, Jr., Vice Pres. 235 8. Harrison St.
Fubunann & Sohnid’ Browine Shamokin, Pa.
fae Rae
[pe
jane Pie
Seaaiaher Retake Cotepeny Wilkos engi g
Fred B. Franks, President 311 Gordon Street
Horlacher Brewing Company Allentown, Pa.
{fol. 85]
Joseph Al Paulosky, President 101 8. Fi n St.
Columbia Brewing Company Shenan , Pa.
Richard L. Y , Vice President 5th & Mahantongo Sts.
D. G. Yuengling , Inc. Pottsville, Pa.
Robert O. Davidson, Secretary and 716 South Centre St.
M Pottsville, Pa.
Mt. Carbon Brewery
John B. Lieberman, President 67 North Main St.
Charles D. Kaier Company, Tac. Mahanoy City, Pa.
Nathaniel F. Cooper, President Reading, Pa.
Sunshine Brewing Company
Robert M. Brown, Vice President 10th & Callowhill St.
i 's Inc. Philadelphia, Pa.
Miss Grace McEnerney, Secretary 127 Edward Street
to the President Philadelphia, Pa.
C. Schmidt & Sons, Inc.
Henry Perot, President 123 S. Broad Street
Perot Malting Company Philadelphia, Pa.
Dalzell F. Hartman 243 W. Lemon Street
Miller & Hartman Wholesale Grocers Lancaster, Pa.
Herbert J. Lindner, President 150 South 12th St.
Arizona Brewing Company, Inc. Phoenix, Arizona
Charles J. Minning, General Mer. 2929 Grand Avenue Distributor
Arizona Distributing Company” Phoenix, Arizona
G, J. Biesinger, President Altoona, Pa. Brewe'
Altoona Brewing Company *
76
Name Address
Regis J. Maloney, President Du Bois, Pa.
Du Bois eswins Compens :
J. Martin M , Jr., Secretary 22nd & State Street Brewery
Erie Brewing pany Erie, Pennsylvania
James B. Tito, President 119 Ligonier Street Brewery
Latrobe Brewing Company Latrobe, Pa.
Paul W. Koenig, Vice President South 22nd & Mary Sts. Brewery
Duquesne Brewing Company of Pittsburgh, Pa.
Pittsburgh ;
Sylvester E. Cowell 3340 Liberty Avenue Brewery
Pittsburgh Brewing Company Pittsburgh, Pa.
Carl Straub, Secretary Treasurer 303 Sorg Street Brewery
Straub Brewery, Inc. St. Mary’s Pa.
William B. Jones, Jr., Chairman Second Street Brewery
of the Board Smithton, Pa.
Jones Brewing Company
[fol. 86]
Donald E. Larrick, Asst. Manager 405 Prince Street Distributor
Beckley Ice & Feed Company Beckley, W. Va.
Morris Hershman 2741 Liberty Ave.
King-Golumb Distributing Company Pittsburgh, P
Fred J. lo 201 De Walt Street
Brentwood Distributing Company Brentwood, Pittsburgh,
Ivania
Frank Petrovich 815 Streets Run Road
Pleasant Hills Distributing Company Pleasant Hills,
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Dave Zapchar, Manager 815 Streets Run Road
Pleasant Hills Distributing Company Pleasant Hills,
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Peter Merlo 1215 Maple Avenue
Duquesne Beer Distributing indluind, Pecaewiveni
Company
James B. Connolly 206 Pennsylvania
Avenue, East
Warren, Pennsylvania
Casto Dixon 918—4th Avenue
Soda & Mineral Water Co. Warren, Pennsylvania
Fred G. Wessi , Vice President 1133 W. Burnside St.
Blitz-Weinhard Company Portland, Oregon
Frederick Sitterding, IIT 1125 W. Street
Home Brewing Company Richmond, Virginia
J. Robert Evans Groseclose, Virginia
Evans Distributing Company
Shelby Norton, Virginia
cee ee
Quality Distributing Company
eRudolr Cheatwood
<5 & L Straus Beverage Company
bon J. Loupy, Administrative Asst.
ucky Lager Brewing Company
om Grace, President
— Brothers Brewery
Name
fark T. Custer, Manager
pValley Forge Distributing Company
de Dalton, Sales Manager
awrence Distributing Company
h J.
alstaff Brewing Corporation
Richard A. Meyer
shoune-thaseh, Te
ight iy agg General Counsel
Saar usch, Incorporated
fol. 87]
corporated
Harold W. Locke, President
OCKE
AcDowell Distributing Company
obert'L. Becker, President
Distributing Company
oda Bess
Bluff City Beer and Produce
Company
cis H. McDowell
er Products Company
eslie S. Breckon
Vincent Vre Non
obert Smith, Executive Secretary
Vho eal Bose Distributors of
‘exas, Inc.
dwin F. Hermanutz, Manager
alley Brewing Company
Bi
Vice President
mpany
sory E. Picard, President
meister Brewing Corporation
eo T. Faget, Executive Vice
='4
Palo Brewing Company
Vice President
es A. Kuper, Vice President
one Star Brewing Company
bert J.
arl B
Address
1342—8th St., 8.W.
Roanoke, Virginia
Danville, Virginia
1707 Summit Avenue
Richmond, Virginia
300 Water Street
St. Charles, Mo.
5050 Oakland Avenue
St. Louis, Missouri
721 Pestalozzi Street
St. Louis, Missouri
721 Pestalozsi Street
St. Louis,
131 8. Main Street
Cape Girardeau, Mo.
541 Henderson St.
Poplar Bluff, No.
500 Bridge Street
Hannibal, Missouri
1900 Lincoln Avenue
Ogden, Utah
3741 Forrest-Hills Dr.
Salt Lake City, Utah
107 University Terrace
0, Nevada
Austin, Texas
1501 nay Street
Mercedes, Texas
542 Simpson Street
San Antonio, Texas
312 Pearl Parkway
San Antonio, Texas
470 Tenth Street
San Francisco, Calif.
3250—20th Street
San Francisco, Calif.
2601 Newhall Street
San Francisco, Calif.
203 Second Street
Santa Rosa, Calif.
78
Name
John Green, Office Manage
Bauer-Schweitzer Malting oon
W. Burleigh Pattee, Attorney
conah J. Gillis, Vice President
cme Distributing Company
William C. Fleetwood, Owner
B & B Distributing Company
William P. Summer, Sr.
Summer Beverage Company
iotee. Guineas Distributing Co.
[fol. 88}
Charles A. Coatney, Controller
Great Western Malting Company
8. H. Perkins, Secretary
Sicks Rainier Brewing Company
Thomas H. , Secretary
Silver Springs Brewing Company
Adolph D. Schmidt, Jr., President
Olympia Brewing Company
Hamilton M. Jones, Manager
Bohemian Breweries, Division of
Atlantic Brewing Company
ey Levine
Beverage Company
Wayne Tawlks
Puget Sound Distributors
Stan Lavine, Vice President
K & L Beverage Co
mpany
P. Robert Sevenich
Northwest Distributing Company
Howard Bargreen
Northwest “Distributing Company
Joey August
Joey August Distributors
Walter Reisch, General Manager
Reisch Brewing Company
Harold Paar, Vice President
Warsaw Brewing Company
W. F. McHenry
W. F. McHenry & Co.
Charles Lechner
Lechner Distributing Company
Mendal Kelly
K & T Distributors
Address
530 Chestnut Street
San Francisco, Calif.
111 ee Street
San Francisco, Calif.
Laurel Street
Garambis, 8. Car.
216 East Bay Street
Savannah, Georgia
810 Gervais Street
Columbia, 8. Car.
Columbus, Georgia
Longview, Washington
3100 rt Way
Seattle, Washington
105 East 26th Street
Tacoma, Washington
Tumwater, Washington
1402 W. Second Ave.
Spokane, Washington
4660 E. Marginal Way
Seattle, Washington
2805 Sixth Avenue
Bremerton, Washington
4660 E. Marginal Way
Seattle, Washington
3430 Sixteenth St.
Everett, Washington
2821 Rucker Avenue
Everett, Washington
East 840 Trent Ave.
Spokane, Washington
723 N. Rutledge St.
Springfield, Illinois
Warsaw, Illinois
900 E. Adams Street
Springfield, Illinois
Mt. Carmel, Illinois
Mt. Carmel, Illinois
Name
Fred Terrell
FT Dotributors
C. Buford Price
Mrs. Olivia P. Fair
{fol. 89]
John J. Renaud, Jr., President
Associated Distributors, Inc.
Pierce J. Harvey
Louis Figueredo
Charles M. Pascal, President
Pascal, Inc.
Harold Peterson, Chief of Police
A. W. Ecton
Frank J. McGinley, Jr.
Tri-A Beverage and Sales Company
Max J. Kolck, Jr., Vice President
Great Western Malting Company
Charles Harkins, Assistant Secretary
Genesee Brewing Company, Inc.
Maurice L. Lewis, President
Standard Rochester Brewing
Company, Inc.
Earl W. Harrison, Vice President
International Breweries, Inc.
T. F Manning, Office Manager
Century Brewing Company
A. J. Hauseg, Local Manager
The Burger Brewing Company
Bert McGowan, General Manager
be. = Branch, Lucky Lager Brewing
R. G. Kolocheski, President
Oconto Brewing Company, Inc.
Thomas McConnell, III, Executive
Vice President
C. Schmidt & Sons, Inc.
Address
116 Adriatic
Tampa, Florida
5th Ave. & 13th St.
Tampa, Florida
1223 Woldland Ave.
Lakeland, Florida
410 Blanca Avenue
Tampa, Florida
20434 N. New York Ave.
Lak ida
» Flori
Street
rida
205 Mo
Tampa,
2202 North Boulevard
Tampa, Florida
3000 V Street, N.B.
Washington, D. C.
1600 Fisher Buildi
Detroit, Michigan
Menominee, Michigan
Smithville, Missouri
419 Wyandotte
Kansas City, Mo.
5945 8S. Malt Avenue
Los Angeles, Calif.
100 National Street
Rochester, New York
770 Emerson Street
, New York
194-262 Pratt St.
Buffalo, New York
710 Washington Ave.
. Norfolk, Virginia
529 Grant Street
Akron, Ohio
Salt Lake City, Utah
1017 Superior Street
Oconto, Wisconsin
127 Edward Street
Philadelphia, Pa.
Brewery
Brewery
Distributor
Malt
Brewery
Brewery
Brewery
Brewery
Brewery
Brewery
80
Name Address
Dan McLaughlin, Secretary 375 Grain Exchange Malt
Kruner Malting Company Minneapolis, Minn.
Red Wing Malting Co. Red Wing, Minnesota Malt
George H. Bussmann, Vice President 820 Congress Avenue Brewery
Hull Company New Haven, Conn.
John Kuhn, Controller 119 Hill Street Brewery
Liebmann Breweries, Inc. Orange, New Jersey
[fol.90] 2. Factual Description of the Nature of the
Testimony of:
(a) Distributor Witnesses
Jack Sobel, d/b/a j
Beverage Distributing Company of
Maryland Inc., 2600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Baltimore, Maryland
Sobel distributed Blatz beer from 1956 to September 18,
1958. Shortly after the merger he lost Blatz to the Pabst
distributor, the Terminal Distributing Company. He was
not offered the opportunity to distribute both brands.
He did not replace Blatz with any other brand. He was
unable to obtain any nationally advertised brands as a
substitute for Blatz. The Pabst representative with whom
he dealt was George Lenz.
James H. Hall
Hall Distributing Company
3 Warehouse Drive
Salisbury, North Carolina
Prior to the merger, he was, from 1947 to 1959, divisional
manager for Blatz beer. He dealt with wholesalers as 4
brewery representative. After the merger, the company
policy was to get both Blatz and Pabst wholesalers under
one roof. The policy was to get a wholesaler who had one
brand to merge voluntarily with the wholesaler who had
the other brand. It was the ‘‘management’’ who made
the decision as to which company would lose a line if the
merger could not be effected.
Auttie Talmage Harris
Harris Distributing Co.
522 Foster Street
Durham, North Carolina
He distributed Blatz beer from December 1957 to Janu-
ary 1959, when he lost Blatz to the Carolina Distributing
Company. He was unable to obtain any replacement for
Blatz. He attempted to obtain distributorship of Carling’s
and Falstaff’s brands of beer without success. The Blatz
representative with whom he dealt was James H. Hall.
[fol.91] John A. Baynes, Jr.
3021 Park Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina
He formerly did business as Eastern Distributing Com-
pany and distributed Blatz beer. In the summer of 1959
he lost Blatz to Hanks Distributing Company. This forced
him to go out of business. He was unable to obtain the
distributorship of any other beer. The Blatz representative
with whom he dealt was George Griffin.
William D. Philbeck
Highland Distributing Co.
Glidden Street
Fayetteville, North Carolina
His company distributed Blatz from 1947 until February
959 when it lost that brand to the Southern Distributing
ompany, which thereafter handled both brands. He was
unable to obtain any replacement for Blatz.
Phillip Castagna
6340 West Fletcher Street
Chicago, Illinois
He is an employee of Pabst at the present time. Prior
0 the merger he was a Blatz distributor; he was informed
by Phillip Clancy after the merger that his distributorship
was being cancelled. However, he was offered a choice of
n job as salesman for a smaller territory and accepted the
ob as salesman.
Carl H. Arens
1350 North Astor Street
Chicago, Ilinois
Arens was formerly vice president of Beacons Distrib
tors, Inc., 6000 South Perry, Chicago, Illinois, and di
tributed Blatz beer. His distributorship was cancelle
without notice in September 1958. He made no attemp
to obtain a replacement. The Blatz representative wi
whom he dealt was R. B. Bunino.
William T. Middleton
312 Broadway
Sterling, Illinois
He was formerly a Pabst distributor and was cancelled
after the merger, by registered letter. He did not atte
to secure a replacement for Pabst.
[fol. 92] Geno Castagnoli
c/o Solano Distributing Company
22 Brancifort Street
Vallejo, California
He formerly distributed Blatz beer but was cancell
after the merger. The Pabst representative with who
he dealt was named McNamara. He was unable to obtai
any premium beer.
Dewey Johnson
c/o Lancaster Bottling Works
305 Union Street
Lancaster, Ohio
He formerly was a Pabst distributor but was terminate
subsequent to the merger. He has been unable to obtsi
a replacement since all premium beers in the area are «
by other distributors. The Pabst employee who contaete
him was A. W. Lesperance.
Oscar F’. Schmidt
Peerless Transportation Company
214 South Perry Street
Dayton, Ohio
He was terminated as a Pabst distributor in January
1959. He is not distributing any beer at the present time
because all distributorships are taken. He complained to
Rocco Bunino.
Marcus Hoffard
4562 Daybrook Drive
Bay City, Michigan
Formerly Pabst distributor and was terminated after
merger. He was unable to obtain a satisfactory replacement
but did pick up P.O.C. brand which was an unsatisfactory
replacement. He attempted to get Budweiser and Schlitz
without success. He dealt with Harvey La Rose, a Pabst
representative. He also contacted Edward Kaiotf of Pabst.
Thomas Evans
Evans Beverage Company
902 West Main Street
Owosso, Michigan
He was formerly a Pabst distributor and was terminated
after the merger. He has been unable to obtain an adequate
replacement although he tried to obtain Hamm’s. The
Pabst representatives with whom he dealt were Edward
Kaloff and Ralph Gregory.
[fol. 93] Charles Lee
Alpena Beer Distributing Company
2193 State Street
Alpena, Michigan
Distributed Pabst beer until May 1, 1958, when he was
terminated. Has been unable to obtain a satisfactory re-
placement, although he has obtained Miller’s and Altes
which do not compare with Pabst. Attempted to get Bud-
weiser without success. The Pabst representatives with
wh
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.