The Mathews journal. (Mathews C.H. [Court House]) 1903-1937, 1912-05-09
DISSOLUTION OF Nv: w.
HARVESTER co.

ST. PAUL, MIMI Special
Claiming that the International
Harvester Company Is a combine
ton ian restraint OF trade, that &c
has made effective competition
impossible, that it has misIcd the
public and dealers regarding its
ownership and output, and that
it has reSOrted TO unfair trade
methods ana has made inaccurate
and misleading statements con-
corning rival machines and COM
panieS, the Department OF Justice
requested the dissolution of the
company.
Coming as the climax to several
years investigation of the harvester
trust, this suit is minute i'm its details,
multifOld in its charges and specific
in its names, dates and other data
The International Harvester
Company, il claims. was fathcred
by Cyrus II. Mccormick. Harold
+. Mccormick, Charles and James
Dccring, Richard 4. Howe, VIII
liam IA. Jones, John j. GleSSner,
George w. Perkins, Charles
Stccls. Ebert ii. Gary, George
4. Baker. Norman Il. Rcam and
Others. who entered into and be-
came a party To a combination i'm
restraint of Interstate trade and
commerce i'm harvesting machine
cry, tools and implements and
binder Irvine, and mOnOpOlized
said trade and commerce.
These men, it declares, have been
engaged ever since in maintaining
and perpetuating this illegal COM
bination and have unlawfully at
tempted TO mOnopOlize interstate
trade and commerce in machinery Of
all kinds.
The modus operaudi Of the trust is
explained i'm the suit as follows:
I'm towns where there is more than
one retail dealer defendants have
adopted and are now carrying out
the policy OF givin. TO each dealer
the exclusive agency for a certain
Wcli-kuoNn machine. such as the Nc
CormiCk' or DecriEg' grain binder or
mower. instead of giving TO one deal
er an agency for all OF the defend
ants lines, intending thereby TO OBJ
tain for themselves the services Of ali
the responsible implement dealers
and, by means of these contracts, to.
monopoiize all the trade and COM
merce in harvesting and agricultural
implements"
As an example Of this procedure
the suit cites the case of ID. NJ Os-
borne x Co., OF Auburn. y. Y. manu-
facturerS OF harvesting machinery.
twine and tillage implements. who
were bought out 10y the International
Harvester Company. il is alleged. the
latter preserving the original name
of the Osborne Company and selling
their own goods under the old name
Slogan of Company.
In some cases. the Department
of Justice claims. the Intcrna-
tiOnaI Harvest Company even
used this slogan. Not made by
the trust" or Flight the mOnOp-
oily" on their own goods so as to
stimulate trade i'm these lines.
"The power in combination Of de-
PENDANTS" continues the suit. "in in
terstate commerce In harvesting ma
chinery and Irvine, deters and pre-
petitors therein and has made effective
competition with defendants in har-
Vesting machinery Impossible ana In
other lines Of agricultural machinery
well nigh impossible.
Defendants have concealed their
ownership OF controlled companies
have procured and permitted the same
10 be held out and advertised as wholly
independent and without connection
intending thereby to mislead, deceive
and defraud the public and more ef-
fectually cripple existing competitors
and keep out new ones.
"Defendants have rcsOrted 10 uu-
fair trade methods. have made
inaccurate and misleading state
mcntS concerning rival machines
of the credit of their competitors.
have by MISREPRESENTATION sought
20 induce competitors agents To.
abandon them, and In divers un-
strON them. md for the purpose of
destructive competition have re-
duccd prices OF their machines in
some localities below cOss Of pro-
ductiOu and distribution. while
keeping prices up In other IOcnIi-
Ties
After showing how 90 per cent. OK
the harVesters, % per cent. OF the
mowers. and so per cent. OF the binder
Irvine annually produced in the United
States is the product of the Inter
national Harvester Company. and how
the latter has gradually closed all
doors to trade and throttled COMPETE
ton. the petition concludes with q
prayer for the dissolution Of the COM
panN, under the sherman antitrust
law, and the granting of an injunction
against the movement OF the products.
OF the trust.