The Sentinel=record., 1913-11-04
HARVESTER TRUST
 MUST BE CURED
SAY ATTORNEYS FOR GOVERN. MENT IN THE DISSOLUTION
 CASES AT ST. PAUL.
Declare Two Families, Mccormick and Deering, Will Eventually Con- trol All Machinery.

St. Paul, Minn., Nov. 3.-Edward P. GrosvenOr concluding the first DOT tion of his final argument for the gov ernment in the suit to dissolve the International Hary ester company to- 1 day declared 10 judges of the United States district court that unless the l Harvester trust" is disintegrated
 two families within a few years will own q monopoly of every implement made in this country for the Ameri- can farmer The special assistant to Attorney General McReynolds speci- fled Cyrus McCormick and James Deering of Chicago, as the heads of these families and characterized 1 them as willing to use their great power to fix prices and intimidaCe local dealers as means of crushing competition.
 Then with dotted maps showing the agricultural states of this country Mr Grosyenor pointed out the loca- | lions of 10000 local agents or deal CTS, who he declared are but q DOT ton of the vast selling organization dominated by the International Har- vester company. Through the ne dium of the general sales committee of the company said Mir. Grosvenor acting directly through a district manager the local dealer was forced to accept the dictates of the trust or be crushed Also the federal law yer said the local dealer was used to
 keep the corporation informed of competition.
 We have shown" argued MT
 Grosyenor. by evidence which can not be disputed, that Cyrus McCOr'
 mick, James Deering and Harold F. | Mccormick, acting as members of ! this general sales committee have ap- | proved directly the monopolistic
 methods of the corporations mana gers or employees, and in doing so, We
 have established beyond any doubt ] that character of these people. And l that character is such as to make it | necessary for the courts to restrain ! them in the effort to prevent the de- struction of competition and the en- trenchment of monopoly by unfair methods"
 The federal prosecutor touching on the answer the defendants have filed
 with the court in the Harvester com pany grief. said
 The answer of these defendants is solely the naming of an intent to eX- pand their foreign business. Or, in other words, they demand to be per mitted to break the laws of this country so that their business may expand. That insist is the sum and substance of their answer, and as the court well knows, this is no justified tiOn.7
 Mir. Grosvenor in this connection quoted precedents in the Union Pa cific case the Trans Missouri freight case, the Northern Securities case, the bath tub case. the cotton case and the anthracite case as substantiating his contention for all lack of ustifi- cation.
 Referring to that part of the de- fen1ants' answer labelled Growing competition" Mir Grosvenor directed the courts attention to the evidence of Matt Sprule of Sparta, H., called as a witness to substavtiate claims of competition made by counsel for the Harvester company
 That case of Matt Sprule, if it please the court" said MT. Grosve- nor, lis fairly typical of the sort of competition that this powerful mon opoly has met since it's organization.
 Let us read the testimony of MT Sprule. It shows that in the year of 1907, Mir, 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 more than 100000 machines that the International Harvester company sold annually, will give an idea as to the | sort of competition the trust was forced to meet"
 Mir. Grosvenor completed the first portion of his argument and yielded
 10 Judge AIcHugh, of counsel for the defense, shortly before the close If the afternoon session. Judge McHugh had just begun his argument when