Elmore County Republican. [volume] (Mountain Home, Idaho) 1910-1915, 1912-05-11
President Mccormick Makes a
Reply to Charges.
He DEFENDS THE ORGANIZATION
statement issued In Connection with
the Governments Suit to DIS
solve International Har.
vester Company.

! Mimi, April So against the Interna
tional Harvester company, alleging
violation of the Sherman law and max
ing the general charges that are Gus
tomary in bill OF this kind, and ask
ing for whatever reliefs are consid
cred necessary by the court. The bin
is very long one and therefore can
not be reproduced, but it sets forth,
IN effect that the Harvester company
is monopoly in restraint of trade,
has used oppressive methods In fore
Ing its agents to handle its goods ex.
elusiYely, etc To these charges Pree
ident Mccormick has made the lol-
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
of increasing the foreign trade. It
had no water in its capitalization, and
ii has earned only reasonable return
on its capital, less than z per cent
per annnm 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 ma.
terial prices and 30 per cent in wages.
The company has caused large saw
ing to American farmers in the cost
of agricultural implements. 1t has in
creased the foreign trade in agricul-
tural implements four-fold In nine
years its foreign sales in 1911 were
over $A2,000,000. 1t has not sold cheap
OF its customers, its employees, its
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 machines: to
agents and dealers, less hazardous
and fluctuating business and to its en-
poyes 1t has given higher wages, i'm
proved and sanitary working condi-
tons, insurance against sickness, ac-
cident and old age, and share in the
profits.
"The charges of misconduct found
In the bill have been met and dis
proved by the company in other cases;
and they will again fail, because they
are untrue. The supreme court Of
Missouri, in "A suit in which those
charges were fully gone into, said:
ION the whole, the evidence shows
that the International Harvester COM
pany has not used its 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"
1.-The evidence also shows that the
machines manufactured by the Inter-
national Harvester company have been
greatly improved In quality and the
item of repair material has been re-
duced in price and placed within closer
reach Of the 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 it should be held that the
law was violated, it could only be
through the creation Of power to op-
press which has never been exercised.
More than six years ago the COM
pany asked for its investigation by the
United States government and opened
all its books and records for inspec-
ton, and furnished all information re-
quested No suggestion Of any change
in its business methods has been made
to 1t by the government at any time.
Recently, a 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 will obviate the necessity
of any protracted litigation by salts
flying 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 rganization.
however, was suggested by the govern
ment which seemed practically pos
sible.
"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 fling OF the bill will
in no way interfere with the company's
carrying on its business the same -
heretofore"