The Logan Republican. [volume] (Logan, Utah) 1902-1924, 1912-05-07
He DEFENDS The ORGANIZATION
Statement Issued In Connection with
the Governments Suit to Dis.
solve International Har.
vester Company.

tomary in bill of this kind. and ask.
ing for whatever reliefs are consid.
cred necessary by the court. The bill
Is very long one and therefore can.
not be reproduced, but II sets forth,
In effect. that the Harvester company
Is a monopoly in restraint OF trade,
has used oppressive methods in fore.
ing its agents to handle its goods ex.
clusively, etc. To these charges Pres.
ident Mccormick has made the fol-
lowing reply:
THE international Harvester case
differs radically In its facts from all
the so-called trust cases heretofore
decided under the Sherman law. The
International Harvester company was
organized in 1902 for the purpose OF
securing economy in the manufacture
and sale OF harvesting machinery, and
or increasing the forclpn trade. II
had no water In It's capital,sp ton, end
II has earned only a reason. BILE return
on Its capital,-less than per cent
per annum on the average The prices
OF Its machines are now substantially
the same as In 1902. Notwithstanding
an Increase OF Is per cent in raw ina.
terial prices and 30 per cent In wages.
The company has caused a large say.
ing to American farmers In the cost
OF agricultural implements. II has In.
creased the foreign trade in agricul.
tural implements four.fold In min,
years; Its foreign sales In 1911 were
over $42.0O0,000 II has not sold cheap.
or abroad than at home Its treatment
OF its customers. its employees, it's
agents and its competitors has been
in accord with the highest standard
of ethics and honorable business meth.
DDS. To the farmers it has given bet.
ter service and better mach!.ss: to
agents and dealers, less h1ali Gus
and fluctuating business and to |. J EN-.
ployes it has Given higher ware. i'm
proved and sanitary working CrnGi.
tons, Insurance against sickncs-, &c.
cident and old age, and q share t. the
profits.
THE ChcrIcs Of ulsccrS-ct fund
In the Till have been met crt dis.
proved by the conn Eng in other cases;
aad they will SSil l,,l. EeCarsa they
are untrue. Tie supr, ne court OF
Missouri, in suit in ws!sh those
charges were fully gone into, said:
ION the whole. the evidence shows
that the International Harvester COM
pany has not used It's power to Cypress
or injure the farmers who are its Gus.
toners"
And again:
1.-The price OF harvesting machines
has not increased in proportion to the
increased cost of construction or the
increased merit of the machines. and
respondent has brought other farm i'm
plements into trade"
The evidence also shows that TIE
machines manufactured by the Inter-
national Harvester company have been
greatly improved in quality and tho
Item of repair material has been re-
duced in price and placed within closer
IedCn VI lne FARMER.
The organizers OF this company
acted under the advice OF able counsel,
and In the sincere belief that they
were violating no law. II under later
decisions 1t should be held that tn
law was violated, 1t could only be
through the creation Of power to o2-
press which has never been exercised
More than six years ago the com.
pany asked for its inyestig ton by the
United States government, aud opened
all Its books and records for iRspec-
ton, and furnished all info.ma ion re-
quested. No suggestion OF any change
In Its business methods tas been mado
TO 1t by the government at any time
Recently, full and frank discussion
OF the whole situation has been had
between the representatives, of the gov
eminent and the company, in an hon
est desire upon both sides to avoid
litigation. Some plan may yet be
found which win obyiate tho necessity
OF any prot acted litlga ion by salts
tying the claims made under the Sher-
man act without seriously impairing
the economic advantages and benefits
secured by the organization OF this
company. No form of reorganization,
however, was suggested by the govern
ment which seemed practically pos
sible.
1.-THE government has been careful
to avoid embarrassment TO the foreign
business from the litigation; the bill
makes no attack upon, and seeks no
change in, the export business OF the
company. The filing OF the bill will
in no way interfere with the companys
carrying on its business the same a.
heretofore"