The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1911-08-10
100000 FEE
CONTINUED from page nine.)

trust the year before.
A feature of the Townsend report
upon which the steel inquirers lay
stress is the following:
The International Harvester Com
pany sells to the foreign trade at a
cheaper price than the domestic trade
1t sells machines of all kinds for ex-
port, delivered at New York at the
same price for which they are sold to
domestic purchasers f. o. b. Chicago.
This makes difference of from SO to
$40 a machine
Refund Charge Made.
81 was surprised to learn, while in.
vestigating this subject that the steel
trust refunds to harvester companies
So a ton for all steel used in the manu-
facture of machinery exported, thus
giving the same result as if the steel
had been imported, the import duty
paid, and afterward refunded under
the drawback law, indicating that steel
can be profitably produced in this
! country and sold at the foreign price
It justifies a small difference between
the domestic and foreign prices. but
it would amount to only a few cents
for each machine and in no way ex-
plains the difference indicated above"
Says He Heard Of Bribery
Mr.. Townsend detailed many other
charges of violations.
Il have learned" he said, "of many
alleged dishonest acts of the Interna-
tional Harvester Company, such as
legislature bribing, tax lodging, etc. !
some based on apparently authentic
information, some on rumor."
These matters he submitted to en-
able the attorney general to deter
mine whether there had been violation
of the antitrust law.
In my judgment" the report con-
cludes, "the facts concerning the or
ganization of the International Harves-
ter Company constitutes a violation of
the antitrust law"
Attacks 100000 Fee to Morgan.
Mr.. Townsend in his report referred
especially to the price paid to ]. Pier
Dont Morgan & Co. in the harvester
deal, saying:
Five million dollars is a very high
price for the simple service of sug-
costing to people how they can agree
in legitimate transaction. 1t is not
unusual in illegal transactions, such as
creating a trust which can evade the
laws. Doubtless if proceedings are in
stituted against the International Har-
vester Company the manner of it's de-
Tense will demonstrate that the fee
was earned"
In explaining the purchase by the
International of D. NJ. Osborne &, Co.
in 1903 for $4OOO,OOO, the Aultman-
Miller & Coh for 100000 in the same
year, the Minneapolis Harvester Com
pany for 100000 and the keystone
for $4,000, Mr.. Townsend re-
ported:
"The manner of these purchases and
the use made of the property show the Il
purpose of the International Harvester I
Company. Each of the purchases was L
made secretly; in the name of some of [
It's directors or stockholders, who held i
The stock in trust for it. The Osborne !,
and Keystone companies both were t
operated for some time ostensibly as ii
Independent, competing plants; the
Harvester Company con- j
'ealed its ownership. Why? Was it G
lot because it was conscious that it's Il
disclosure would give added testimony Il
If its trust character and trust meth Il
IDS? u
Alleges Destruction of Competition. n
Again, the Aultman-Miller COM fl
'any and the Minneapolis company IL
10Th were abandoned Immediately u.
fter the purchase and the plants re
we're dismantled. The purchase of di
hese plants could have been for no n
ther purpose than to destroy competi- ST
ion. One million four hundred thou =,
and dollars was expended to acquire
'lants which it did not intend to use, -.
nut simply to destroy.
Bear in mind that in all of these -
instances all patent rights We're ac-
uired and are still retained by the In ~ -
Harvester Company"