The Birmingham age-herald., 1914-08-13
HARVESTER co. IS ORDERED DISSOLVED BY COURT DECISION Declared to Be a Monopoly and In Restraint of
 Trade MUST SUBMIT TO
 DISSOLUTION PLAN If Corporation Fails to Take Action In Ninety Days Court Will Entertain Application for
 Receiver

to be monopoly in restraint of interstate and foreign trade and was ordered dis solved by majority decision filed here by Judges Smith and Hook in the United States court. Judge Walter H. -san5orn dissented.
 Unless the corporation submits a plan for dissolution within 90 days the court will entertain an application for re- ceiver. The suit in which decision was handed down today was filed April 30, 1912, in the federal district court at St. Paul. In it's petition the government asked:
 That the sl4ooOO,ooo corporation be dis solved on the ground that it was mo- nopoly in restraint of trade.
 That injunction be issued to bar from interstate commerce the products of the International Harvester company or of the International Harvester company of America, it's selling agency
 That receivers be appointed to take charge of the property and wind up the I finds such action compatible with public interests.
 The chief charges by the government against the harvester company were;
 That the company in monopolizing the sale and manufacture of harvesting ma chinery had advanced prices ito the grave injury of the farmer and the general public"
 Absorbed Companies
 That the company controls at least 90 per cent of the trade in the United States in harvesters or grain binders, 75 per cent of the mowers, and more than 50 per cent of the binder twine.
 That the company had absorbed com peting companies while allowing these companies still to advertise as being in- dependent, thereby misleading, deceiving and defrauding the public and more ef- fectually cripplng existing competitors and keeping out new ones'
 That the defendants resorted to unfair trade methods by attempting to induce agents to handle only their products. Shat it bought up patents to perpetuate the monopoly.
 That in organizing the International
 
 planned to form monopoly
 That tine company bound retail dealers by contract not to sell the products of other manufacturers.
 That the harvester company received iron, steel and lumber from the Wiscon- sin Lumber company and the Wisconsin Lumber company subsidiaries, which were used to eliminate competition
 That the company used railroads under ts fn al tai in nectng roads.
 Judge Hook, concurring, says:
 The International Harvester coirpany was created by combining five great com panes, which controlled more than so per cent of the trade in necessary farm inn plements, and it still maitains stibstan- tial dominance
 That is the controlling fact; all else is detail
 Tt may be, as is possibly said, that there is a growing recognition of the need of great concentrated resources for trade and commerce. But that is not the sher- man act,
 "A statute must be taken by the courts as true estimate of the pre- ponderance of public opinion It is not for them to question whether that opin ion was rightly weighed and in terpreted
 Tt is but just, though, to make it plain that in the main, the business conduct of the company toward it's com petitors and the public has been hon orable. clean and fair"
 Sanb0rn Dissents
 Judge Sanborn. in dissenting. said;
 Ihe controlling issue in this case is not what combination or monopolv was made in 1902 1903 or 1904 nor whether that combination violated the antitrust a ir doing, or threatening to do. acts unfea- sonably restraining or monopolizing in terstaie or foreign trade.
 sections l and of the antitrust law, forbid combinations and monono- lies in undue restrain of interstate or foreign trade. Section T25 of the re- tised statutes, bars prosecution undar these acts for such violation three vears after they are committed If, therefore. combination or monopoly was mada in 1902, 1903 or 1904, the proceedings to punish were barred many years before this suit was commenced.
 "The evidence adduced in this oaso not only fails to show that the defend- ants were unreasonably restraining or attempting to monopolze interstate ar foreign trade, or threatening to do so at the time this suit was commenced and for seven years before that time, but they establish the converse.' Judge Sanborn points out that the ontitrust law is resurrection of the ancient English rule of public policy. He insists that it does nat habitually forbid all restraint or restrictions of Competition. but only those which are unreasonabIy Injurious to the public. He goes on: !. The weight of the evidence of the officers and agents of the defendant s Competitors. who came In large num- bers to testify, was overwhelming that the almost universal practice of the de- fendant was, and it. free from all methods and acts either unlawful. un- fair or oppressive toward their com z petitors."
 In conclusion Judge Sanborn said that to him the suit seemed to present a new case under the antitrust law
 Neither the Standard oil company case nor the American Tobacco com pany case, nor any other authority cited seems to me to rule this case he said, 'because in none of them was there such conclusive evidence that for years before the suits were commenced the defendants had practiced no acts constituting an undue restraint of trade or unreasonable attempt to monopo- lize it.
 'In my opinion this complaint should be dismissed without prejudice to the right of the United States to bring an other suit if any of the defendants is found to be violating the antitrust
 Will Appeal
 s1,o Init ffr,r1-