The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-05-30
Test1fies Regarding Transac-
tions at Kansas Capital.
HE is RESPONSIBLE
He Says, for Anything Done
That Was Not Right.
Offers Explanation of Griggs &
MOneypenny Trouble.


the International Harvester company
mad been mild and considerate in its
methods and not at all like the nic
lures OF the naughty trusts that have
stirred the people to anger against big
corporations, was given at the hear
Ing in the Kansas custer suit in the
Auditorium Annex before Special
commissioner Henry e. Ganse.
d. l.. Rees. who was general agent
Tor the harvester company in the To-
peka district during the time the al
legged offending transactions took place,
occupied the witness stand The strict
Iormallty OF a court was not observ-
cd, ana lawyers, witnesses and inter-
eSted persons reclined in easy chairs
about the apartment, and even smok-
by Earle w. Evans, counsel in Kansas
| for the company, for he took OF his
coat and unbuttoned his vest in an ef-
fort to obtain comfort.
Take Up Action of Rees.
The testimony revolved around the
| conditions local to Topeka in 1905 for
good part Of the session, the princi-
| pal thing being the act of Mr. Rees in
| taking away the local agency for the
Osborn mower from the firm of Griggs
& Moneypenny after the firm had
been given the exclusive agency in
| that city.
The witness insisted that he had
| taken this step entirely on his own re-
sponsibility; in fact, that in the matter
of agencies and contracts the general
agents were a law unto themselves,
being governed in a general way by
their experience.
The clause in the contract forms
prohibiting local agents from handling
machines manufactured by indepen-
dent concerns, he insisted, was prac-
tical1y dead letter, and he was not
sure even that it had not been left out
altogether that year.
Reason for Annulling Contract.
! AS for Griggs & Moneypenny. he
testified, they had been deprived of
the agency for the Osborn machine
making settlements with the Interna-
tional company and had not disposed
Of what was considered sufficient
number of machines. One of the stip-
ulations in their getting the contract.
he said, was that they should make
the Osborn their leader
Another thing which Attorney Gen.
eral Fred S. Jackson Of Kansas, who
conducted the cross-examinatfon.
wanted to know about was a meet
ing Of general agents of the Interna-
tional in Kansas City early that year.
Mr.. Rees recalled such a meeting and
named all the men present he could
remember. He insisted that the
meo1lnR, WHICH was neIQ III tne OF
fees of the Plano company, one Of
the subsidiary corporations Of the
International. was held solely to pro-
mote a better acquaintance among
the agents. some of whom had never
met. The meeting was on the eve of
convention Of implement dealers.
| but he declared positively that prices
and agreements did not enter into the
| affair.
Didn't Hit the Independents.
One thing of which the witness was
| positive was that the International at
the time in question did not refuse to
| allow the dealers who handled its
| product to sell also the machines of
| Independent manufacturers. In fact,
| he said, nearly everyone had some
| other line, and the only thing that
| the combine had insisted on was be-
| ing allowed to sell the parts needed
I, for repairs. In some cases outsiders
had encroached in this branch of the
business. cutting prices by means Of
| handling inferior goods, he said.
| The session was attended by Cyrus
H. Mccormick. president Of the In
ternational, but he was not called to
| the stand. e. A. Bancroft, general
counsel for the company. was on
hand to assist Attorney Evans, and
| c. c. Coleman, former attorney gen.
| eral of Kansas who instituted the suit
| sat beside Attorney General Jackson
and assisted him in the cross-exam-
| inatfOn