ustxtxb_obs_1974_01_18_50_00010-00000_000.pdf

10 The Texas Observer The Texas Observer in the Classroom Six $ Issues For orders of ten or more copies of each issue sent to a single address the cost for the semester is just $1.00 per person, sales tax included. Classroom subscriptions will begin with the issue published in early February and extend through April. Six fortnightly issues in all. That’s about 179 an issue . . . 35V less than the single copy price. To place your order, please indicate the number of students who will be subscribing, your needs regarding a free desk copy, and a mailing address we should use. If the number of subscribers is uncertain, feel free to make a generous estimate. After the class rolls settle, we will bill you at $1.00 each only for the number of persons who finally decide to subscribe. Extra bonus: Orders received by January 22nd will be entered to begin with the issue being mailed that week … making a total of seven issues for the semester rather than six. THE TEXAS OBSERVER 600 West 7 Austin Tx 78701 day with Richard W. McLaren, who at that time was the assistant attorney general of the anti-trust division. McLaren, now a federal district judge in Chicago, said in an affidavit filed in San Antonio that on or about Nov. 30, 1971, Mitchell “discussed with me the request I had made for a grand jury investigation and after reviewing the legal and tactical questions involved, including the difficulty of obtaining a criminal conviction in the face of a defense that the defendants’ activities were exempt from the anti-trust laws, Attorney General Mitchell suggested that the anti-trust division proceed along civil rather than criminal lines.” McLaren said this was the only discussion he had with Mitchell and that he had no other direct or indirect communication with the White House or GOP fund raisers or anyone else concerning the anti-trust suit. On Dec. 20, the Chicago office forwarded a request to Washington that a civil anti-trust suit be filed. On Jan. 18, 1972, McLaren forwarded the proposed complaint to Mitchell for his approval and authorization. On. Jan. 22, Mitchell signed the complaint and requested that AMPI be offered the opportunity to enter into a consent decree to be filed simultaneously with the complaint. On Jan. 25, the counsel for AMPI in Chicago read the complaint. On Jan. 26, AMPI informed the anti-trust division that it did not want to engage in prefiling negotiations. On Feb. 1, 1972, the case was filed. Justice lawyers point out that the suit was filed two days before Mehren met with Kalmbach “before AMPI had an opportunity to comply with the illegal demand.” If extortion was what the government had in mind, why proceed with the suit before the victim has a chance to pay up? “My sole reason for directing that the AMPI suit be filed was to prevent and restrain what appeared from our investigations to be a serious violation ‘ of the anti-trust laws,” McLaren said. The Justice Department maintains that the White House and CREEP papers requested by AMPI are “not relevant” and that the only issue “is whether AMPI violated the anti-trust laws and whether the public is entitled to an injunctive relief against further violations.” THE UNITED States is asking that 6,000 farmers belonging to the dairy coop refund $100 million gained through allegedly monopolistic practices. According to the Justice Department, “various illegal actions of AMPI have resulted in AMPI’s being the exclusive supplier of milk to a majority of milk producers in many local areas.” These areas include portions of Texas, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Tennessee. The government maintains that AMPI has gained complete control over the products of member farmers and has the power to decide what to pay for the product. The villain is AMPI’s “Base Plan,” which is binding on members. The producer-members buy the right to market through AMPI a specific number of pounds of milk at a specific price known as the “base price.” AMPI gives the farmer substantially less money per pound for all milk exceeding the number of allotted base pounds. It is not financially feasible for a dairyman to market his milk through AMPI over a period of years without acquiring enough base to cover a substantial percentage of his milk. Base thus represents a valuable right to market milk through AMPI at a reasonable price. But, there are hitches. In order to get enough base to make milk production profitable, many members of AMPI must produce and market their excess milk through AMPI for a number of years, sustaining a loss on their dairy operation, or buy another member’s base. At the time the government suit was filed, base was being bought and sold for between $10 and $20 a pound. In the past few years, the transfer of base has gotten more and more difficult. In April of 1967, the board of the South of AMPI’s processors, adopted new transfer by members leaving the coop would be recognized save those going out would be cancelled if the seller did not continue his membership in STPA beyond the anniversary date of his membership following the transfer. This became the policy throughout the AMPI system. Then, in 1968, even more stringent restrictions were adopted, restrictions requiring members not to sell milk to competitors for five years after leaving AMPI and not to sell land to anyone who sells milk to AMPI competitors. Violators lose their base. The Justice Department believes that the restrictions were adopted to stop AMPI members from joining a newly-formed competitive coop. Since the government suit was filed, a number of smaller dairy coops have sued AMPI. One of those coops is Texas Producers Marketing’ Assistance Plan McDade of Fulbright, Crooker and Jaworski. MAP contends that AMPI also tried to squeeze out competition by asserting that it was the most politically active and politically powerful coop in the nation. Watergate Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski cited Fulbright Crooker’s association with MAP when he announced in November that he would recuse himself in matters concerning the dairy investigation. The action came as a surprise to McDade. “I don’t know why he did it,” McDade told the Observer. McDade said he felt there was not conflict involved. K.N.