The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-12-06
TRUST Is HARD HIT
Harvester Combination Con-
victed in District Court.
Jury Returns Verdict of Guilty
on 42 Counts.
WERE ORIGINALLY IS.
Thirty Counts Thrown Out by
Judge Dana.
Maximum Penalty Is 81, 900
Per Count.
WE'RE ORIGINALLY IS

JUST one nOur to Oec1Oe Cnat
the International Harvester COM
pany was guilty on AZ counts. The
state originally asked for conviction
on 70 counts, but owing to a flaw in
the information, the evidence of w. A.
Morton. Of the firm of Seery & Morton.
was stricken out. This let out 80
counts, leaving Is counts. From this
were substracted three counts, based
on sales by c. H. Phelps. The infor-
nation charged that Phelps had made
32 sales, but on the stand he tes-
tilted to only % sales. This left AZ
counts asked for by the state, and the
jury was not long in rendering a YER
dict of guilty On every count The
jury made no effort to separate the
counts, and balloted on the entire AZ
counts charged in the information.
These counts were based as follows:
G. H. Phelps, 20 sales, II moving ma
chimes, harvesters, rakes and IL
orders of repairs; j. L. Monneypenny,
the sale of machines; o. A Pratt, 8
machines, ]. A. Lukens sales.
The first ballot of the jury showed
results of 10 to in favor of convic-
ton on the entire AZ counts. No one
seemed inclined to weed out any of the
counts left in the information. On the
second ballot the two remaining jury
men came over without argument, and
the entire transaction might have
been closed in 35 minutes, except that
the attorneys had left the court room,
and had to be called back by the
bailiff. Promptly at 5o'clock the jury
was admitted to the court room with
its verdict.
Arguments of the Attorneys.
The principal arguments were Of
fered by Ex-Governor Stanley, for the
Harvester company, and Attorney
General Fred Jackson for the state.
P10nnant
plea for his client, basing his argu-
ment on the good which had been
done by the harvester trust. and set
ting forth that the company had SIM
ply consolidated a majority of the
state implement dealers into an as
sociation for mutual benefit and pro-
lection. He also. eontended that the
contracts, offered in evidence, were
simply the contracts of agency, and
legal.
closely to the testimony in the case,
referred often to the exclusive con-
tracts" forced upon dealers by the
trust, and by citing the swift finish Of
the contract, exploded the theory of
the defense that the combination had
injured no one.
In speaking of the case after the
verdict had been given, Attorney Gen
eraI jackson said: 'I think the find
any higher court. 1 also think that
1t practically settles the case now
pending in higher court, and I can
see no escape for the harvester trust.
The criminal prosecution of a trust in
Kansas courts is a pioneer effort, and
untried. 1t is now up to the higher
courts to decide whether or not
each sale constitutes a separate count,
or whether all the sales proven in this
court constitute one offense. That is
the only question left. The guilt of
the company is settled"
The minimum penalty on each
count in this case is fine of 500,
and a maximum a fine of $1,000. The
Harvester company has asked for
new trial, as a matter of form in
reaching an appeal.
Major A. NJ. Harvey, who assisted
in the state prosecution, said today in
regard to the penalty in the case:
"Our statute on that proposition is
slightly balled up, it seems to me, and
a higher court will have to interpret
the section. It may be construed two
ways-that the defendant is liable to
a penalty of 5000 per day after con-
viction, or after the commission of the
crime. In this feature our statute diff
fers from the Texas law on the sub
ject, which is plain in its intent to fine
the trust in question for every day
after the proven commission of the
first crime"
Z.
The whole history of how the In
ternational Harvester company of
New Jersey, through one William G.
Lane. purchased the Milwaukee Har-
vester company's manufacturing
plant, and then, as an "afterthought'
the empty shell"-the stock-and
breathed into it new life; how this
resurrected corporation stepped forth
as the International Harvester Com
pany of America, the selling end of
the harvester trust, all this and much
more is told in detail in the answers
filed today with the Kansas supreme
court by Cyrus H. Mccormick, presi-
dent of the International of America.
These answers are in reply to the
As interrogatories propounded by the
attorney general of the state, and
which the International refused to
answer until ordered to do so by the
supreme court.
The stock of the International Har-
vester Company of America Is held
and Geo. w. Perkins, the
total number Of shares vested in that
trust triumvirate being 1891. AS in
dividuals each of the above named
men owns one share. and there are
six others, each owning one share.
The answers then admit specifically
the purchase of the manufacturing
plants and all of the assets of the
Harvester company, the
Deerings, Plano. War
der, BushnoH & Glessner, Osborne,
Buckeye, and other harvester machin-
cry concerns.
In answer to the question as to
whether or not. prior to these pur-
chased by the International of rival
concerns, there had not been competi-
tive selling between these firms in the
state. the International says:
'The defendant does not know. but
states on information and belief that