New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-04-25
ROOSEVELT HALTED
HARVESTER SUIT
Continued from FIRST page.

which inclose copies. According to these
papers and Mr.. Perkins, statement, 1t
would appear that the Harvester company
has repeatedly, on It's own initiative, asked
that it's business be invesugated o. me
through the Commissioner OF Corporations
that three years ago the Interstate COM
merce Commission decided that 1t had nc
cepted what amounted substantially to re-
bates: that Mr.. Moody, the then Attorney
General. was about 20 take action on this
report, but the Harvester company at once
promised TO rectfy tine practices and see
that nothing contrary 20 the ruling of the
commission was again done. TINS was
satisfactory to the Attorney General Gnu
the suit was dropped.
The Harvester company says IL Is In posi-
ton to prove that It has lived UP to TINS
agreement. made IN May, 1904. The Harr
vester company advances this as proof
that II any illegal action - pointed out IL
will itself ractify. the matter on It's being
pointed out n further appears that ihst
December Senator Hansbrough got we
Senate to pass resolution direStlns tne
Department Of Commerce ana LABOR 10
make an early investigation into the char-
acter and operation and effect upon inter
state commerce. of the International mar
yester Company and that In January last
Msssrs GARFIELD and Smith met various
representatives Of the Harvester company
IN New York and a conclusion was reached
that the department would Legin the exainl-
nation speedily as possible, Whlch con
cluslon was announced publicly In the
press On March Commissioner smith
notified the Harvester company that the
inquiry would be into the incorporation ION
value Of its property, "ecurities and the
general management Of its business. " ap-
pears by his letter of August That com
missioner Smith had begun the investig .t-
ton but has not made such progress win
II as he would like to on account or his
being crowded with work.
Mr.. Perknss request TO me Is that, oe-
fore the company Is exposed TO the certalh
10. al
OF a suit would entail. this investigation py
Mr.. Smith. as required by Senate resolu-
ton should be carried 10 completion. he
explicitly stated TO me that there Wouid
he no intention to plead the Examination
10y the Department OF Commerce fnd LaDo'
as comforting any immunity from lrocSeu,,
ings by the Department OF Justice. VIII
you see Mr.. Perkins and Commissioners
Smith, go over the matter IN full 6nd re-
port TO me thereon?
Please do not file the suit until ! hear
from you. Sincerely yours.
THEODORE ROOSEVELT.
Hon Charles j. Bonaparte, Attorney CEN
cral. Hotel Aspinwall Lenox, Mass I'm
cosures).
Commissioners Smith wrote the Presi-
dent that Mr.. Perkins outlined the posi-
ton of the harvester company as having
committed no violation or law or which
II knew, and only wished that the In
vestlgation then under way by the De-
partment Of Commerce and Labor be
Continued. The company was willing TO
stand prosecution If found in violation
Of any statutes, he said The Commits
sioner wrote 10 the President. in part, as
follows:
To the extent of my present knowledge.
am satisfied that the facts are as stat d
by the company, with the single exception
that | do not nave definite knowledge as
of the Department OF Justice, but fiorl
tho EXPIRE slons Of the Attorney General
am inclined to believe that II is. as Mr.
Perkins stated, a purely technical legal
question.
As to the principle Of fair dealing and
good policy involved also concur en-
phaticaIIy with the attitude Of The COM
pany. Il is certainly true that this COM
pany has beer most open with tho bu.
reau.
v. s. Steel CO. operated.
Furthermore, the attitude Of the Morgan
interests generally. which contrel thls
company, has been one or active co-opera-
ton. In the Investigation oI the s,eei m
ton has already spent thousands OF dol
lars IN compiling tor the bureau the MS
complete and Intimate INFORMATION a. 10 10
immense trouble and loss OF time TO faclll-
tate IN every way our WORK.
In my interview OF August q with MI
Perkins no set forth n number CT cons: d.
eratlons which seem TO ME OF great weight.
He stated that his company had endetY-
ored 10 OBEY the law IN. every respect ana
had carefully put Itself IN me WIN inc
policy of the ADMIN, stration; that the in
tere is that ne reLresented, including not
only the International Harvester company,
but also the FAR reaching Morgan interests
IL In
Zion ~ the Bureau Of Corporations and
the policy ot the President which that bu-
reau represents. and that both In their at
titude toward the bureau and I'm their con
Germs Including the United safes Steel
CORPORATION. they had adopted timiar
policy OF frankness and publicity; that So
lar as they were aware they had not teon
Guilty OF any violations OF the law, certain
r. pono involving a moral consider ton ,
that, as he phrased IT, he was now osinS
laughed at IN New aor sv, py t tbot So Fad
trled 70 be good and keep solid with INC
administration, but that he nov was solnt
to get the same dose as other pe'p's WIZ
hod not followed such policies.
As 10 the legal question, where TINS com
ranv'g organization has been VIOLATION
nf the sherman law. | am not particular!
Interested. nor have | any hxed OPINION ~.
nc of q suit under the sherman law
na5 inst tbs company would be moral ~.
! iietice and n reversal or the correcl ahu
/ advanced policy OF the President In dealln I
| With corporate business. II Is SUBMITTED
| that this case raises acutely question OF
| a general policy Of great Importance whlcn
| must be, / think, determined now, ana lOr
witch this case will stand as precedent.
| This case raises the question included IN
what the President has called good ara
! bad" trusts; the question whether comoina-
lions as such shall be prohibited; whether
| the Government Is going 10 try 10 fornlo
I all combinations. regardless OF their meth
dds or ends, or whether on the other hana,
! IL Is going 10 pursue the policy. frequently
| stated BY the President. OF regulation ana
| control rather than Of prohibition.
| Finally. this case against the COMPANY J.
p civil. not a criminal, one Delay VIII nor
! affect the case through any asatute or llfnl-
! tation. n there IL a good. equitable case
| against the company. II Will be In a thou-
/ sandfold better shape for trial after the IN
yestigaton by the bureau tnan now.
| These considerations explain and Jusuty
! the attitude taken by the international
Harvester Company. which attitude repre-
| sents | believe. that OF majority or me
financial interests of the country
Commissioner Smiths letter 20 Presi
dent Roosevelt was accompanied by A
letter OF Endorsement from Oscar Straus,
then Secretary OF Commerce and Labor
The sending Of the correspondence to
the Senate was not without sensational
incidents. Only a few weeks ago At
! torney General Wickersham fatty re-