The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1910-06-19
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER,
Company Files Strong Brief in Mis-
souri, Denying Allegations.


ST. Louis, June 1S-The international
Harvester Company OF America has filed
its brief with Theodore Brace. Special
Commissioner, in the case begun BY At
torney General HadIey in 1907. 20 GUST
this company from doing business in
Missouri.
The case is exceptional in the history
OF the antitrust litigation OF this State,
because this company, from the begin
ming, invited the fullest investigation
and freely offered all its records for
inspection, and its officers and directors
willingly appeared and testified fully
and frankly, without q single objection
being interpcsed by the attorneys for
the company.
The International Harvester Com
pany, the brief contends. was lawfully
organized in 1902 for the lawful purpose
of manufacturing agricultural imple-
ments on large scale, and not to
restrain trade or limit production, the
evidence showing that no manufactur-
ing plants have been dismantled or
closed down; but. on the contrary. that
all have been enlarged their output
such as manure spreadeTs, tractors,
gasoline engines, and cream separatoTs,
have been added.
Answering the charge of a combina-
ton to increase prices, the brief points
out that every dollar of the company
capital was fully paid and no watered
stock issued; that during seven years its
dividends have averaged less than per
cent per annum and Its earnings less
/ than 6 per cent per annum; that from
1902 10 1907 while all other prices were
soaring. binders and mowers did not ad-
vance; that the increase Of about per
cent in 1908 was justified by the much
greater increase in the cost Of labor and
materials, and was less than the in
crease in other agricultural implements.
which advanced between 12sz and 20 per
| cent.
Nearly seventy-nve prominent imple-
ment dealers, residing In ali parts Of
Missouri. testified in the case. and their
evidence is quoted to show that free
competition in the harvester business has
not been restrained; that the company
has not fixed retail prices, nor limited
the selling territory of its agents; that
no unfair or oppressive practices Of any
sort have been used toward competitors,
| customers or dealers; that the facilities
/ for the distribution OF farm machinery.
| tools and appliances have been largely
| increased; that repairs are cheaper and
| furnished more promptly, and that the
| liberal and fair business methods OF the
company are satisfactory and beneficial
TO the dealers and farmers OF Missouri.
The charge that the company enjoys
IS TO 90 per cent OF the business in
agricultural implements, tools and ma
chinery," is met by evidence showing
that Ii does only Is to % per cent OF
such business, and that only in binders
and mowers does ii do any large per-
centage of the business. Aside from
binders and mowers, the company sells
nineteen other kinds of implements. The
brief states that this case is different
from all other antitrust cases, because
never before has State demanded the
forfeiture of the franchises of q cor
poration engaged In twenty-one lines OF
business. because in two of those lines
it has acquired the larger part OF the
trade
Special comment is made upon the
fact that, although the charge IS that
the company has operated Ito the great
=. damage of the people OF Missouri. not
one farmer was called as a witness 20
prove any damage, while all the dealers
who testified were unanimous IN saving
that trade conditions had improved. Ihe
brief concludes that the company re
lies with confidence upon the record OF
what 1t has done and is doing in the
State of Missouri. and, awaits the Judg-
ment Of vindication to which II believes
it is honestly entitled"
The attorneys for the company are
Selden P. Spencer, ST Louis; Judge W.
NJ Williams. OF Boonville Mo. and
Edgar A. Bancroft, Of Chicago, the
general counsel of the company.