   |
   |
     |
<% Dim MyValue2 Randomize MyValue2 = Int((6 * Rnd) + 1) Set Conn = Server.CreateObject("ADODB.Connection") Conn.Open Session("trsa_ConnectionString2") MySQL = "Select * From HouseAds Where HouseAdID Like '%" & MyValue2 & "%' " Set Conn = Conn.Execute(MySQL) %>
 |
Item #1: Textile Shortage Doubted
New York — Reasonable assurance that current fears of textile shortages will prove groundless, and the complaints of scarcity except where speculation is involved will have "little justification in fact," was seen July 24, by W. Ray Bell, president of The Association of Cotton Textile Merchants of New York. Production of cotton cloth at near capacity levels, already assured for the balance of this year, plus the demonstrated ability and will of the industry to meet any crucial situation, are offsets, Mr. Bell said, to the powerful market stimulants added in recent weeks, first by the Korean War, and second by new post-war peaks in raw cotton prices occasioned by the Government's low acreage estimate. Reporting in the Association's nineteenth annual survey of the cotton textile markets. Mr. Bell noted that a resurgent home market demand for cotton textiles was already taking up the slack occasioned by diminished cloth exports which probably would not exceed one half billion square yards for all 1950. He cited the danger of lowered tariffs and increased imports which in five months of 1950 have exceeded the full year 1949 hut held that these would not affect mill operations for the remainder of this year. Most immediate and difficult problem of the industry, he said, is the recent bull m a r k e t in raw cotton which presents the industry with a major raw materials cost increase, induces speculative factors, and involves deep uncertainties as to the harvest of cotton. Its effects on cloth merchandising have been strong. For the long pull, he stated, "it adds to the advantages of competing fibers and reflects on the wisdom of Government control policies. "The question of military supply," he continued, "is still an enigma" to be determined "by the future course of political and military action. It is safe to say that complete priority will be given by the industry to any demands for military textiles that may be made, and that requirements will be met in stride." The annual review and its accompanying "Ten Year Chart" of cotton textile statistics reported production of cotton textiles for 1949 amounting to 9,391,578,000 square yards or the lowest for any year of the decade, reflecting the period of inventory liquidation and inadequate buying to meet consumer needs early in that year A reversal in market psychology coming at mid-year has since expanded and continued over into 1950, with both spindle hour activity and cotton consumption suggesting an 18 per cent improvement in production for the first five months of 1950 from the like 1949 period. The amount of goods made available per capita of population for 1949 registered a new low since 1938 of 57.17 square yards. The report showed 23,341,000 spindles in place January 1, 1950, a loss of '410.000 spindles for the year, and of 1,599,000 spindles in the past ten years. In the period January 1 to June 1, 1950, a further decline. o f 240,000 spindles occurred. It was noted that no new cotton mills had been built either during or since the war. Partly offsetting the spindleage decrease, however, were 858,623 new spindles installed constituting a new record in Association data on new equipment going back to 1925. Consolidated Laundries Consolidated Laundries Corp. New York, for net profit before Federal income taxes for the first six fiscal periods ending June 17, 1950 amounted to $339,066.53 and after providing for Federal income taxes amounted to $210,-224.83 or 60 cents per share on 347.700 shares of Common Stock outstanding. This compares with net profit before Federal income taxes of $555,097.84 and after providing for Federal income taxes amounted to $334,160.78 or 99 cents per share on the Common Stock in the corresponding period of 1949. Net profit before Federal income taxes for the second quarter of this year amounted to $267,007.03 and after providing for Federal income taxes amounted to $165,547.87 or 47 cents per share on the Common Stock. This corn-pares with net profit of $350,859.28 before Federal income taxes and net profit of $217,532.87 after Federal income taxes, or 63 cents per share or, the Common Stock for the second quarter of 1949. New Haven, Conn.—The anti-trust division of the justice department, June 28, filed civil suit in federal court at New Haven, Conn. charging Emanuel Gratenstein, of New Haven, together with eight corporations allegedly con-. trolled by him, with violating the Sher- man Anti-Trust Act in the linen supply' business in western Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island. The eight defendant corporations are the Central Coat, Apron and Linen Service, Inc. of Massachusetts, with offices in Springfield; The General Linen Supply and Laundry Company, Inc., Pittsfield; The Central Coat, Apron and Linen Service, Inc., of Connecticut; The Morgan linen Service; Inc., of Bridgeport, Conn.; The General Linen Supply and Laundry Company of Waterbury,, Conn.; The Ideal Linen Service Company of New London, Conn. ; The Swift Coat, Apron and Towel Supply, Inc., of Hartford and Comet Coat, Apron and Linen Service, Inc., of Stamford, Conn. The defendants, do a business of more than $3,750,000 annually, according to Gerald J. McCarthy, chief 'of the New. England office of the anti-trust division. The government's complaint alleges that since 1940 the defendants have "conspired to restrain and monopolize the linen supply business in eastern Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island." It is also alleged that the defendants systematically injured and harassed competing linen suppliers in, order to compel them to sell out to the defendants." The suit seeks an order requiring the. defendants to sell the assets which they have acquired since 1940 by means of activities alleged to be in violation of the Sherman Act. In addition, the government seeks a broad injunction requiring the defendants to cease their activities which allegedly have prevented "open and effective competition with the defendants." 'Subsequent to the announcement of the suit, Gratenstein issued a statement denying that he had violated the Sherman anti-trust act as charged by the government. |