Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1912-05-02

order thereby more effectually to pei
petuate the combination and nor
opoly."
The following corporations and ir
dividuals are mentioned as defendant
in the petition:
The Defendants Named.
International Harvester Co., Inter
national Harvester Co. of America, In
! ternational Flax Irvine Co., Wisconsin
Steel Co., Wisconsin Lumber Co., ILL
nois Northern Railway, Chicago, Yves
Northern Railway, the Chicago, Yves
Pullman and Southern Railroad co.
! Cyrus H. Mccormick, Charles Deer1ng
James Deering, John j. Glessner, vii
liam H. Jones, Harold F. Mccormick
Richard Howe, Edgar A. Bancroft, Geo
F. Baker, William J. Louderback, Nor
man B. Ram, Charles Steele, John A
Chapman, Ebert H. Gary, Thomas u
Jones, John P. Wilson, William l.
! Saunders, George w. Perkins.
The prosecution Of the case will be
directed by Edwin P. Grosvenor,
special assistant to the attorney gen
eral, who had charge Of the bath tub
trust" cases. In additional to MT
Grosvenor, the petition Is signed by
Attorney General Wickersham, J. A.
Fowler assistant to the attorney gen.
eral, and Charles c. Houpt, United
States district attorney at st. Paul.
"In many states" the petition de-
clares, 1.-THE farmers expenditure for
harvesting machinery and tWlne az
gregate considerably more than SO per
cent of the total expense incurred by
him in purchasing agricultural machln-
cry and implements of all kinds.
Trust Organized in 1902.
The International Harvester CO.,
WIS organized in New Jersey in 1902.
Prior to that time the government de-
clares there were ten or twelve estab-
lishments for the manufacture and
sale of harvesting implements in &C.
tive competition with each other. The
alleged trust was formed through the
combination OF the Mccormick Har-
vesting Machine Co., Of Illinois, the
Deering Co., of Illinois, the Plano
Manufacturing Co., Of Illinois, Warder,
Bushnell & Glessner Co., Of Ohio and
the Milwaukee Harvester Co. The
aggregate annual output of these five
concerns, it is said. amounted to over
IS per cent of all the harvesting ma
chinery and so per cent of all the
binder twine produced and sold in the
United States at that time.
'In organizing the International
Harvester Co., the defendants were
actuated," the petition declares, "by
a determination to secure control OF
interstate commerce in harvesting ma
chinery and twine and also to expand
into other classes of agricultural ma
chinery with a purpose Of monopoly.
The company was incorporated in New
Jersey with a capital stock originally
OF $12O,OOO,00O The control of the
capital stock was placed in the hands
of three voting trustees-Cyrus H. Nc
Cormick, Charles Deering and George
w. Perkins, who issued stock trust
certificates to the persons actually
owning the stock"
Morgan Got over Three Million.
In explaining the disposition of the
stock the petition says that $3,451,SO3
was issued to J. Pierpont Morgan &
Co., for underwriting services and
legal expenses and $3,148,197 to the
same firm in reimbursements for the
cash expended to secure the property
of the Milwaukee Harvester Co.
The absorbed Milwaukee Harvester
tional Harvester of America, through
which the alleged trust sells execu-
lively it's entire output in the United
States.
The International Harvester Co.,
Of America is merely the selling
agency of the other International COM
pany," continues the petition. Since
its acquisition by the International
Harvester Co., it has paid mo- divi-
dends upon it's capital stock, $1,0OO,00O.
It buys and sells at the prices fixed
by the parent company. In fact, the
company is a bookkeeping
given the form of a cor
porate entity with a small capitaliza-
ton for the purpose of enabling the
larger company to do business in
states from which it is debarred by
reason of it's huge capitalization.
"The arrangement between the In
ternational Harvester Co., and the
Harvester Co., of Amer
lea, was further devised and now is
being carried out by the defendants
for the purpose of giving to the New
Jersey company the appearance Of not
being engaged in Interstate commerce;
in other words, in order to accomplish
an ostensible segregation of the manu-
featuring or intrastate business of the
from its distributing or
interstate business, thereby securing
to the latter protection against the
avs of the several states which have
for their object the suppression OF
monopolies or their exclusion from
their borders"
The petition asks that this company
be decreed an unlawful organization In
restraint of trade.
PULASKI.