Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
www.fsgbooks.com
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
THE VERDICT
J
udge Walter C. Lindley was no one’s idea of a flaming radical. Born
in 1880 in the village of Neoga, deep in the corn and soybean coun-
try of south-central Illinois, Lindley had a reputation as a scholar: at
a time when many learned the law as apprentices rather than as stu-
dents, he earned not only a law degree but also a doctorate in laws from
the University of Illinois. In Danville, a commercial hub 150 miles south
of Chicago, he became a man of prominence. He built a law practice,
won a seat on the city council, and became an attorney for Joseph Can-
non, who served eight years as the ironfisted Speaker of the U.S. House
of Representatives and represented Danville in Congress for almost half
a century.
Lindley was a Republican, and shortly after Warren G. Harding,
the great friend of business, became president in 1921, he named Lind-
ley to the federal bench. As a judge, he drew more than his share of high-
profile cases. In a 1929 jury trial that held Chicago rapt, Lindley’s court
convicted sixteen candy wholesalers of terrorizing storekeepers who re-
fused to buy their candy. Two years later, he upheld the near-dictatorial
powers of the commissioner of major-league baseball, Kenesaw Moun-
tain Landis. In the early 1930s, he oversaw the restructuring of the col-
lapsed utilities empire of the Chicago entrepreneur Samuel Insull and
survived an attempt by Insull’s henchmen to have him impeached by
Congress. Suggested as a possible nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court
in 1929, during Herbert Hoover’s presidency, Lindley was not beyond
criticizing that court and, by implication, the Democratic administra-
tion of Franklin Roosevelt. In 1939, he commented acidly that for some
new Supreme Court justices, “precedents may be of little avail and their
lack no bar.”1
4 THE GREAT A&P
A&P was at the center of a bitter political struggle that lasted for
nearly half a century—a struggle that went far beyond economics. At its
root were competing visions of society. One vision could be described
with such words as “modern” and “scientific,” favoring the rationalism
of cold corporate efficiency as a way to increase wealth and raise liv-
ing standards. The other vision could fairly be termed “traditional.”
Dating to Thomas Jefferson and his contemporaries, the traditional
vision harked back to a society of autonomous farmers, craftsmen,
and merchants in which personal independence was the source of
individual opportunity and collective prosperity. The words of Judge
Lindley’s ruling against the Hartfords and A&P embodied the conflict
between those two visions. “To buy, sell and distribute . . . one and
three- quarter billion dollars worth of food annually, at a profit of one
and one-half cents on each dollar, is an achievement one may well be
proud of,” he acknowledged, in a nod to the modern vision. Yet this
achievement, he decided, ran afoul of the Sherman Antitrust Act by
making it hard for smaller firms to compete with A&P. “The Sherman
Act,” he ruled, “was intended to secure equality of opportunity.” Equal-
ity of opportunity could not be secured if big firms were allowed to
pummel the small.5
There may never have been a more improbable pair of convicts than
the Hartfords. The elder of the brothers, George L. Hartford, was as
predictable as they come. He lived in the same house for half a century
and took rooms at the same New Jersey shore resort every summer. He
left home at 9:05 every morning, wore a black suit with stiff collar to
work every day, and made a point of tasting the company’s coffees at
2:00 each afternoon. His hobbies, when he was a younger man, were
repairing cars and building crystal radios, activities that required him to
utter hardly a word to anyone; in later years he did jigsaw puzzles. Few
employees ever laid eyes on the man known throughout the company as
Mr. George. The minutes of meetings of A&P’s top executives rarely
cite his words. One of the few journalists to meet him said he could be
taken “for a retired Polish general—bulky, stolid, rumpled, with a for-
eign air that his American drawl immediately belies.” No one who en-
countered him on the street would have imagined that he headed one
of the largest, most powerful enterprises in the world.6
6 THE GREAT A&P
George and John Hartford were in the grocery trade at a time when sell-
ing food was an activity of enormous economic importance. There were
literally grocery stores on every corner: in 1926, Kansas City, by no
means the most densely populated of American cities, had 30 food mar-
kets per square mile. The first national survey, in 1929, found 585,980
food stores—one for every fifty-one American families. Richard Nixon,
a future president, grew up working in his family’s grocery in Whittier,
California, in the 1920s, and the family of Lady Bird Johnson, a future
first lady, sold groceries from a general store in Karnack, Texas. These
mom-and-pop stores were ser viced by a thick web of suppliers. The
United States boasted 13,618 wholesale distributors of groceries in 1929,
or one wholesaler for every forty-three food retailers. This wholesale
network, in turn, distributed the products of nearly sixty thousand can-
neries, sugar-beet mills, slaughterhouses, soap factories, and other plants
making everything from brooms to baking powder. Mom and pop ran
many of these operations, too. The typical food plant had fewer than
fifteen workers.8
In 1920s America, every town of any consequence had its grocers,
its food brokers and wholesalers, its bottling plants and flour mills.
These enterprises provided a tax base for their communities, a cadre of
owners and managers to serve as civic leaders, and a major source of
jobs. Just the retail side of the food business provided livelihoods for
1.2 million workers on the eve of the Great Depression, many of them
self-employed proprietors. Food retailers, wholesalers, and processors
together engaged one out of every eighteen nonfarm workers in the
entire country—more than apparel and textile factories, iron and steel
plants, coal mines, or even railroads.9
8 THE GREAT A&P
would have heard diatribes against the “childless brothers” who mo-
nopolized food retailing. When Senator Huey Long warned in 1934
that “about ten men” have “chained the country from one end to the
other,” he was talking about Mr. George and Mr. John. When a lawyer
working for the administration of Franklin Roosevelt called the coun-
try’s largest retailer “a gigantic blood sucker,” there was no question he
had the Hartfords in mind: it was he who convinced Judge Lindley to
convict them.
destruction it had once meted out. But while A&P’s fortunes waned,
the economic forces it helped unleash only grew stronger. It made the
process of moving goods from producer to consumer impersonal and
industrial, but also cheap and efficient, a job for the big, not for the
small.
THE GREAT A&P AND THE
STRUGGLE FOR SMALL BUSINESS
IN AMERICA
Amazon
Barnes & Noble
IndieBound
macmillan.com