Fruit Jar Controversy in the 1930’s

On April 21, 1936 F. C. Ball, president of Ball Brothers, wrote a letter to the president of Hartford-Empire, the glass machine company, concerning a Capstan Glass Co. claim that they had rights to make fruit jars using Hartford’s glassmaking equipment. In his letter, F. C. refers to the General Feeder License Agreement that Ball had with Hartford.

“Hartford represents that there are no such rights outstanding, other than those listed in said Schedule G. The rights which are listed in Schedule G are the following:

(1) Salem Glass Works – right to make Lightning style and Eureka Jars for domestic use.

(2) Gayner Glass Works – right to produce not more than 120,000 gross of fruit jars for domestic use, none of which to exceed one half-gallon in capacity. This right, however, expired on July 1, 1934.

(3) American Thermos Bottle Company – no right to make fruit jars.

(4) Corning Glass Works – no right to make fruit jars.

(5) Owens-Illinois – right to manufacture fruit jars for domestic use.

(6) Hazel-Atlas Glass Company – right to manufacture fruit jars for domestic use.

We cannot, therefore, understand the statement of Capstan Glass Company’s patent attorney Mr. N. N. Holland, and request that you give us the facts regarding his statement.”

The resulting correspondence is much too extensive to reproduce here, but I thought that these rights to make fruit jars using Hartford’s feeder system would be of interest. Note that this does not mean that other companies were not making fruit jars using other companies’ feeder systems.

Written by Richard H. Cole, Jr.

© 2003 Minnetrista

First Published in September 2003 Glass Chatter