The Madison daily leader. [volume] (Madison, S.D.) 1890-current, 1912-05-01
SUIT IS FILED
AT ST. PAUL
Government Would Dissolve
Harvester Trust.
MANY ARE DEFENDANTS
Besides the international Harvester
Company Twenty-four Other Corpo-
rations and individuals Are Named
as Members of Alleged Combination.

rations and individuals Are Named
as Members of Alleged Combination.
St Paul, May 1.-Suit against the
International Harvester company, bet
ter known as the harvester trust, UNI
der the Sherman antitrust law was
begun in the United States district
court here.
The bill in equity asking that the
harvester trust be declared a combi-
nation in restraint of trade and that
1t be ordered to dissolve was filed by
}. NJ. Dickey, assistant United States
district attorney.
Besides the International Harvester
company, twenty-four other companies
and individuals are named as defend
ants, including the International Flax
Twine company of ST Paul Ii was
the presence OF this concern in Mime
sofa that gave the basis for filing the
suit in this jurisdiction.
After filing the bill in St Paul Mr..
Dickey went to Minneapolis, where
he filed a petition with Judge c. A.
Willard of the United States district
court asking that subpoenas be issued
for all nonresident defendants. return
able In ST Paul May 6.
Names of Defendants.
The defendants, outside the Inter
national Harvester company, residents
of Illinois or New York, follow:
The International Harvester COM
pany of America; International Flax
Twine company; Wisconsin Steel COM
pany, which owns extensive mines in
Northern Minnesota; Wisconsin Lum-
Der company; Illinois Northern Rail-
way company; Chicago, West Pullman
and Southern Railway company; Cy-
rus II. Mccormick. Charles Deering.
James Deering, John ]. Glessner, Will
lam II. Jones, Harold F. Mccormick,
Richard F. Howe, Edgar A. Bancroft,
George F. Baker, William ]. Louder
back, Norman b. Ream, Charles Steele,
John A. Chapman, Ebert III. Gary,
Thomas d. Jones, John p. Wilson,
William l.. Saunders and George w
Perkins.
The government charges the Har
vester company with being combina
tion in restraint of trade, monopoliZ
ing or attempting to monopolize the
machinery.
Controls Machine Business.
The government alleges that the In
ternational Harvester company con
trolls at least so per cent of the trade
| In the United States in harvesters o.
grain binders, rs per cent of the NOW
| ers and more than so per cent of tn,
binder twine In many sections of the
country the International Harvestel
company has complete monopoly.
The government contends that the
corporation has eliminated competi
| tion by securing control of a great ma
| jority of the retail implement dealers
| in the United States, who are mad,
their exclusive selling sales agents
under penalties mot to sell or be in
terested In the sale Of any farm i'm
plements not manufactured by the In
ternational Harvester company.
The government charges that tn,
l defendants not only have absorbe,
competing companies, but have con
cealed their ownership, permitting
them to be advertised las wholly In
dependent and without connection
with them, the trust or any combine
tion,' intending thereby to mislead
deceive and defraud the public"