South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1913-11-04
HARVESTER TRUST
MUST Be CURBED
SAYS GROSVENOR
If Allowed to Operate at Pres
ent Rate He Asserts MCCOr-
mick and Deering viii Mo-
nopOIize Industry in Two
Years.

ST. PAUL, Mimi. Nov. edward
= GrosvenOr. concluding the first por-
ton of his final argument for the gov
eminent in the suit to dissolve the In
ternational Harvester Co. Monday at
ternoon declared to judges of the L..
s. district court that unless the "Har-
Vester trust" is disintegrated, two
families within a few years viii own
"A monopoly of every implement made
in this country for the American farm
er Cyrus Mccormick and James
Deering of Chicago were character
lied as the heads of these families
willing 10 use their great power to
fix prices and intimidate local deal
ers, as means Of crushing competi-
ton"
Then with dotted maps Of the agri-
cultural states of this country, Mr..
GrosvenOr showed the location OF
10000 local agents or dealers, which
ne declared but "a portion OF the vast
selling machinery dominated by the
International Harvester company.
Through the medium of general sales
committee of the corporation, SAID
Mr.. Grosvenor. acting directly through
a district manager the local dealer
was forced 10 accept the dictates or
the trust" or be crushed. Also the
was used To keep the corporation in
formed of competition.
Big Men Approved.
I'VE have shown argued Mr.. Gros-
VenOr, that Cyrus Mccormick, James
Deering and Harold + Mccormick
approved directly tn emOnOpolistic
methods of the corporations manag-
ers OFF employees, and made IL neces-
sary for the courts TO restrain them
in the future to prevent the destruc-
ton of competition and the entrencn-
ment of monopoly by unfair methods.
The federal prosecutor touching on
the answer of the defendants as filed
with the court in the Harvester com
pany brief said
THE answer of these defendants is
solely the naming of an intent to eX-
pany their foreign business. Or in
other words they demand to be per
mitted 10 break the laws Of this
cOuntr: SO that their business may
cXpand.n That. ] insist is the sum
and substance OF their answer, and as
the court we'll KNOWS, this is no justi-
fcation."
I am confident. if it please the
court" continued the assistant attor-
ney general, that this dispOses Of the
evidence and answer of these defend
ants. Further. 1 desire to emphasize
the point that the combination, as
alleged, was not necessary to the eX-
pension OF the foreign trade OF any
Of the individual concerns which went
into it. In that respect the answer OF
the defendants is untrue"
Cities Spruie Case.
Going into that portion of the de-
PENDANTS answer labeled growing
competition" Mr.. GrOsvenOr directed
the courts attention 10 the evidence OF
Matt Sprule. of Sparta. H.. called a:
a witness TO substantiate claims OF
competition made by counsel for the
harvester company.
That case of Matt Sprule. If il
please the court" said Mr.. Grosvenor
sis fairly typical of the sort of com
petition that this powerful monopoly
has met since its organization.
Let us read the testimony OF Mr.
Sprule. 1t shows that in the year
1907. Mr.. Sprule's concern manufac
tured one machine, in 1908. two ma
chimes; in 1909 three machines: in
1910 three machines: in 1911 three
machines and in 1912 two machines
These figures compared with the moro
than one hundred thousand machines
that the International Harvester com
parry sold annually. Will give an idea
as 10 the sort of competition the
trust was forced To meet"