The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-10-13
TRUST SUIT STARTED.
state Begins Proceedings Against IN
nationaI Harvester Company.

Assistant Attorney General Fred
jackson this afternoon commenced in /
the district court OF Shawnee county, |
criminal proceedings against the IN |
ternational Harvester company, to coli |
Iect penalties for the violation of the
antitrust law Each violation of the
law is punishable by fine Of from
500 to $1,000, and there are so
counts in the petition fled today. Adj
ditiOnal counts will be filed to bring
the total up to about 100.
In the present criminal suit, the
charge is made in each count that the
defendant has entered into an unlaw-
ful combination with the International
Harvester company, of New Jersey, for
the purpose OF preventing competition
and esta blishing q monopoly in the
trade Of harvesting and other agri-
cultural implements and machinery in
Kansas. All counts are based on the
exclusive contract feature OF the con-
tracts issued to agents by the Interna-
tiOnal Harvester company; and the at
torney generals Office seems to have
plenty of evidence
The suit Is to recover penalties for
the violations of the law that have
already occurred. and interferes in no
way with the original custer proceed
ings brought about a month ago. A
convictions means a fine Of from 500
to $1,000 on each count, and any fines
collector go to the state school fund.
All the sales of implements set forth
in the complaint filed today were made
of these sales was secured at the ..ffI-
QUESTION" proceedings some time ago.
The dealers who gave information of
sales were c. H. Phelps W. A Morton
Griegs & Noneypenny Lukens Bros
and 0. A. Pratt. Phelps and Morton
appear most frequently in the big
bundle of complaints. Each sale to
which these dealers testified is made
the basis of separate count. Assist
ant Attorney General F. S. Jackson
said today
The only way we can punish the
Harvester trust is by multiplying
counts against them, and exacting a
penalty on each count. This appar-
emily anomalous proceeding of arrest
ing d corporation, when there is no one
who can be brought into court on
warrant is brought about by an over
sight in drawing the so-called Farrelly
antitrust act. There is no other way
under this act in which a penalty can
be exacted from foreign corporations
which violate it's provisions The
curious thing about this defect in the
Farrelly law is that the law was taken
almost bodily from the Texas law and
yet the penalties were not put in the
Kansas law. Under the Texas law and
those of most other states. persons or
corporations violating the law forfeit
$50 or 500 per day for every day the
0ffense continues. This part was in
Guided in and mixed up with the
phTaSeOlOgy OF the section imposing
fines and jail sentences in the Kansas
law. For this reason the supreme
court held in the case of State vs.. Jack
that such penalties could only be ex-
acted for a continuance of the Offense
after conviction had been secured
This, of course, renders the provision
practically useless.
1.-THE state of Arkansas. under a
provision of law properly drawn. re-
Gently collected $50, 600 from this same
corporation
because the United States court in
the two cases prosecuted before it by
Attorney General Coleman sustained
the judge of the lower court an inn
preston is current that the Kansas
antitrust law is entirely sufficient and
very strong one. The court only
found that the law was constitutional
As a matter of fact the law should be
amended in several respects in the next
Legislature. While the present law
contains many prolix definitions OF a
trust, it contains nothing that makes
monopoly. unless accomplished by a
com biratiOn, an OffenSe.
s.The penalties should also be amend
ed and made stronger. Mr. Farrelly.
the author Of this law has boosted
considerably about its enactment and
charges that until its passage in 1897
there was no law on this subject AS
early as 1887. a law was passed BY the
legislature and is still in force which
is as strong as the present law. and
contains every feaure of the latter law
with the exception of the inquisitionaI
provisions
1T would be travesty on justice
indeed, If, to secure the enforcement
of the law. it became necessary to ar
rest and fine the retail merchants who
have been driven into acting as the
agents of this monopoly, by the organ
ization Of the trust. 1t would amount
to the punishment of the victim Of the
Offense rather than the offender.
Suits IN quo warranto and by in
junction to prevent the violation of the
law are all right. but there ought to
be some way of compelling these Of
tenders to pay some Of the money they
have Illegally exacted from the people
back to the state in fines and penalties.
This manner of proceeding against
the corporation Is common enough
where tn lie grand jury practice is in use.
especially in the federal courts under
the Sherman act. The grand jury is
seldom used IN Kansas and criminal
cases are usually commenced upon
complaint or information. Authorities
permitting corporations to be proceed
ed against crimfnaliy by information or
complaint are not so numerous as un-
der the practice Of Indictment by
nd 7r1~faz lint We think r1ra n sv1s-