The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1913-11-03
Governments Brief Submitted
by Atty. Gen. McReynolds.
RECITES HISTORY Of CONCERN
Says Company Mas Controlled
80 Per Cent Of Business
Since Its Organization q Little
Over Ten Years Ago.

81 1dul, NOV. 'S.--OPQOSln& COu0r
sci entered the United States district
court here this morning for the iinal
struggle in the governments suit to
dissolve the International Harvester
company as a monopoly in violation
of the Sherman law. Members Of
the court gathered to hear final ar
guments in the case. filed more than
a year and a half ago.
According to an announcement
after the certificate and report Of
Special Examiner Robert 8. TAYLOR
has been returned to the court, coun-
sci for the government will occupy
the entire day and possibly a portion
of tomorrow's session in the presenta-
ton of argument. 1t was indicated
that the brief and argument Of the
defense might take even longer
Attorney Genera1s James c. Nc
Reynolds. Edwin p. Grosvenor, spe-
cial assistant to the attorney general,
and ]. r. Darling were in the city to
represent the government.
The Harvester company had on
hand a formidable array of counsel,
including Judge VIM. d. McHugh Of
Edgar A. Bancroft. J. p. Wilson,
Philip A. Post, Victor A. Remy and
w. M. Stillwell. the last five being
from Chicago. AS the time for con-
vening of court arrived it was said
that Mr.. Grosvenor expected to open
formality or delay. Both sides had
spent much of the night perfecting the
last details of their plans for the day
in court.
The Governments Brief.
The brief Of the government was
submitted by Attorney General Nc
Reynolds, reciting the history of the
ORIGIN nj Ho -,
1902. 1t alleged the company has
controlled since that time about 80
per cent of the trade in theh United
States in binders, mowers and other
agricultural implements and prayed
the court to grant an Injunction
against further continuance. The at
'torney generals dissatisfaction with
thu pro. rata Distribution OF the stocks
OF dissolved combination. Is clearly in
dicated in the closing paragraph After
asking for an injunction to insure the
restoration Of competitive conditions,
the brief says:
'In order that the plan may estab-
1ish a coDditiOn in honest harmony
with the law, it is imperative that it
shall diSintegrate the business of the
principal defendant in such manner
that no two of the disinterested par
ties shall be acquired by or come un-
der the control of companies having
common stockholders or companies
otherwise under common control or
influence"
The government contends that the
International company was formed
for the sole purpose of taking over the
panies engaged in selling harvesting
implements. and that it was in effect
the same sort of a combination and
monopoly as was condemned in the
tobacco trust case.
1.-The International Harvester COM
no hry0f dan1Qr n
corporated until the owners of each
Of the five companies had agreed to
sell out to it, and If there had not
been such an agreement, the principal
ing. The direct, necessary and i'm
mediate effect Of it's Incorporation
and immediate acquisition was an un-
due suppression of competition result
ing in restraint of trade and in mo-
nopoly.
Object Was Monopoly.
'"The organization of the Interna-
been followed since that time by a
course of conduct on the part Of the
defendants clearly demonstrating an
intent not only to perpetuate their
business but also to build up by means
of and upon their harvesting mo-
nopoly, a monopoly Of all the business
in agricultural implements in the
United States"
The steps preliminary to the or
ganization Of the Harvester company
were taken in July, 1902. according to
the brief, when Cyrus H. Mccormick,
Charles Deering, John J. Glessner,
William Jones. representing the prln-
cipal harvesting company, and George
W. Perkins, then of ]. p. Morgan &
Company, determined to effect a COM
bination On July %, 1902. four OF
the principal companies executed
identical agreements OF transfer to W.
C. Lane, president of the Standard
Cormick and Perkins secured an op-
ton for a fifth company which after
wards was turned into the selling
agency of the corporation.
The government alleges that in exc
cutting the agreements with Lane, the
defendants sought to evade the anti
trust act on advice of counsel by max
ing apparently bona fide sales of in
dependent business without apparent
collusion. 1t AYERS, however, that there
was an expressed understanding that
there shoulc be retransfer by Lane
of these properties to a new corporation.
On August II the defendants incorpor-
ated the International Harvester COM
pany in New Jersey with broad pow
ers and the capital stock Of $120.000O0O
was issued to w. C. Lane. The next day,
the brief declares, he delivered it to
Mccormick. Deering and Perkins. who
had been chosen as three voting trus-
tees, to run the harvester business OF
the new concern and who held the
stock in trust for the individuals who
had transferred their property to Lane.
Controlled by . Few.
The property was Immediately con-
veyed to the new company. The op-
ton ON the fifth company. Wisconsin