The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-12-07
MIssoURI's TRUST DECISION.

The dispatches have told us how the
Supreme Court Of the State of Missouri
oustcd from all dealings in that State
the Harvester Trust; but the dispatches
did not tell us the spirit IN whrch
the court entered that decree. The
lancua of the court was. IN effect, II
complete triumph for the trust, and the
Harvester Company was banlshei from
the State merely because the statute
pcremptorilv required IT, and not he
cause there was any Just reason for
that banishmcpi.
Tho court, in obedience 10 the statute,
found the defendant guilty. and re-
duircd it 10 pay a fine Of SIO,OOO, and
TO keep out of Missouri in It's bust
ness. Al the same time the Chief jus
ticc stated that the Harvester Trust
had not in any way oppressed the peo-
pie, that the increase in the price of
the Trust company,s products is less
than the increasc in the price OF ma
tcrial and labor used in their construc-
ton. The harvesting company also had
tion ana sale of many other farm i'm
plemcnts. AMI thus put itself IN compe-
tition with the many concerns that had
been engaged in, manufacturing the
same. and the farmers generally have
proftcd by this competition. The evil
dencc showed also that the machines
manufactured by the international
Company have been greatly improved
in quality, ana that the item of re.
pair material has been reduced in price
and placed within easier reach of the
farmers. On the whole, the Chief jus.
tice concludes. t'Thc evidence shows
that the International Harvester Com.
panv has not used it's power 10 Cypress
or iniure the farmers who are its Gus.
toners
One Of the concurring justices ex-
plained clearly that the court was - re.
durcd by the statute 10 condemn
company (Which has proved by the
facts to have been so far beneficial 10
the community and added that Sin
dependent manufacturers have not sui-
fcred hv reason Of the combination.
Scores OF retail dealers had testified to
the fact that the company had used
no unfair methods in its transactions
with them. or in its treatment of com
pctitors.
Still, the court entered the decree Of
expulsion aud fine: this in obedience
10 thc statute which plainly required
/ such decree without regard TO the
question whether the consumer would
be iniuriously affected. And the
Chief Justice explains that. although
the Harvester Trust had not OPP
pressed anybody III Missouri, 1t must
get out of the State; aud with
some degree of sarcasm the Chief jus
| tcc proceeded: "'Whcn men deliberate
! " and intcligcntlv 90 to work anu
acquire power that viii enable them to
| control the market If they choose To
exercise it, there is no use for them to
say that they did not intend TO con
| troll the trade or limit competition. nor
when The legality Of their act and
ACQUISITION is in question is 1t amy use
for them 10 say. We have not used
| the power TO opprcss anyone. j nat
is, the statute requires the custer OF
any company which lhc court hndS to
be in a position to Cypress the people
whether. in fact, that concern has oP-
pressed the people or not. Inc eNl'
deuce was abundant in this case that
the Harvester Trust had not oppressed
the people. aud the court so tounI; and
vet. in obedience to the drastic statute
tho .lccrcc of custer was entered.
II is ono of the most extraordinary
results of antitrust legislation that
has vet been developed in this country
On the showing made, the Harvested
Trust is entitled to the confidence and
support Of the people of Missouri, ano
probably has it. vet. bY reason OF aJ
irouclad statute, not susceptible OF be
ing construed under Hthe rule OF rca
son. = the court was obliged to drV'
out from tho State II concern which II
found in every way beneficial to th'
people therein. Surely antitrust legs
lation folly could no further go,
-
DR.. Wiley, pure food expert, declare