New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-11-03
HARVESTER TRUST
'CH|LD0 c. ". PERKINS,
So Styled by MCReynoIdS in
Brief Filed on Behalf of
Government.
SIXTY DAYS TO DISSOLVE
If Company Doesn't Act U. S.
Wants Courts to Appoint
Receiver to Split
Up Monopoly"

Receiver to Split
Up Monopoly"
From The Tribune Bureau
Washington, Nov. 1.-The government s
brief in the International Harvester Com
pany dissolution suit describes the cor
poration as the child" of George w. Per-
kins, and maintains that 1t is "a combina-
ton in restraint of trade, and that it has
acquired a monopoly OF trade and COM
merce in harvesting implements-all in
violation OF the Sherman act
The final hearings in the case will begin
in st. Paul tomorrow. The Attorney
General and Edwin p. Grosvenor, special
assistant to the Attorney General, will
argue the case for the government. They
will urge the disintegration OF the corpo-
ratlon's business and will ask the court
TO enjoin the continuance OF the alleged
combination.
The court will be asked to give the de-
PENDANTS sixty days in which to submit a
plan for restoring bona fide competitive
conditions, with the alternative of having
a receiver appointed to bring about that
result under the direction Of the court.
1t is alleged in the brief that the Inter-
national Harvester Company, the princi-
pal defendant. is corporation created In
1902 for the sole purpose OF taking over
the interstate businesses OF five companies
engaged in selling harvesting implements,
heretofore competing, and together con-
trolling from 50 to 10 per cent of the total
harvesting business in the United States,
the vendors receiving in exchange for
their properties all the stock in the new
company Except an insignificant per-
centage subscribed for by the bankers)
and no other consideration.
Perkins Fathered Combine.
Referring to the organization of the al
legged trust, the brief says:
Under the undisputed facts the forma-
ton OF the International Harvester Com
pany was not a normal and natural devel-
opment OF the commerce in harvesting
machines. II was the child OF one not
Heretofore interested in the business,
George W. Perkins, a banker and insur-
ance man, who stepped in at an opportune
time to bring the rival manufacturers to-
gether; he and others. by means OF COM
bination i'm corporate form, destroyed
competition and intrenched a monopoly.
The organization of the International
Harvester Company i'm 1902 has been fol-
lowed since that time by a course OF con-
duct on the part OF the defendants clearly
demonstrating an intent not only to per-
petuate their monopoly OF the harvesting
business. but also to build up, by means of
and upon their harvesting monopoly, a
monopoly OF all the business i'm agricult-
ural implements i'm tn, United States"
Tables which are made a part of the
brief show that in 1912 the international
Harvester Company did So per cent OF the
business in the United States in grain
binders. 70 per cent in mowers, 90 per cent
in corn binders. - per cent in rakes and
more than 90 per cent i'm binder Irvine.
When the international Harvester Com
pany was organized. I'm 1902, the McCor-
micks and behring's. owners OF the two
largest companies going into the combina-
ton. received sy2. 42S, 900 OF the total cap
ital stock. this being II per cent OF the
total issue, il is claimed.
Voting Trust in Control.
The brief points out that throughout
the period of ten years from 1892 to 1912
that is, from the formation OF the Inter
national Harvester Company up to the
time OF bringing the suit, all the stock
was held in a voting trust by three vot-
ing trustees, Cyrus II. Mccormick,
Charles Deering and George W. Perkins,
who issued TO the stockholders voting
trust certificates.
Government exhibits in the case show
that on July 81, 1912, members of the Me
Cormick family held $50 O3O. 200 of the vot-
ing trust certificates. members of the
Deering family t2l.72650o and George w.
Perkins and members of his family
100000 Therefore. at the time the suit
was brought about So per cent Of the
total issue of 100000 voting trust GER
tficates was owned by the three voting
trustees. George w. Perkins, Charles
Deering and Cyrus II. Mccormick. or by
members of their immediate families.
1t is asserted that the policy which de-
PENDANTS adopted for marketing their out
put was intended to sthe competition and
TO give them an undue control over deal
ers In agricultural implements II points
out that the international Harvester
Company has more than thirty thousand
implement dealers as its agents in the
United States for harvesting lines, while
its largest competitor in harvesting lines
has only three thousand agents. The
brief in detail describes the power of the
combination and its conduct toward COM
petitors.
"CouId Crush Every Competitor"
"If the International Harvester Com
pany were disposed to exercise the power
its enormous wealth gives, and it were
left unrestrained 10 do so, it could drive
every competitor II now has from the
field" IL is charged.
AS to the character of the decree sought
by the government the brief says:
1--WE submit at this time decree should
be entered adjudging that all defendants
are parties to an unlawful combination
and monopoly; that the international
Harvester Company is in itself a combi-
nation i'm restraint of trade, and that II
has acquired and holds a monopoly OF
harvesting implements, all contrary to