The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1914-08-13

u
al Harvester Company today was de-
clared to be a monopoly in restraint
of interstate and foreign trade, and
was ordered dissolved by majority
decision in the United States district
court.
Unless the $140,0O0,00 corpora
tion submit a plan for the dissolu-
tion of the combination into at least
three independent concerns within
| so days, or in case of appeal within
80 days of the issuance of an appeal
mandate from the United States su-
preme court, the decision announces
that the court will entertain an ap-
plication for the appointment of re-
ceiver for all the properties of the
corporation.
The decision of the court was Civ
en- by Circuit Judge Walter l. Smith
Of Iowa, with which Judge William
C. Hook of Kansas agreed, and from
which Judge Walter A. Sanborn of
Minneapolis dissented.
The majority opinion held that the
International Harvester Company was
from it's organization in 1902 in vio-
lation of the Sherman law. The orig
inal corporation, formed of five con-
Germs, violated the first section of the
Sherman act by restraining competi-
tion among themselves. The COM
bined organization also tended to
monopolize trade in contravention of
the second section of this law.
The decision declares that while
the international Harvester Company
and its selling organization, the In
ternational Harvester Company, of
4 America, control from so to SO per
cent of the trade in agricultural inn
plements manufactured by them
their treatment of smaller competi-
: tors in general has been fair and
just.
: Criticises Only Two Acts.
! The court finds fault with the ac-
I tions of the corporation, aside from
2 the technical violation of the Sher-
, man law, for only two actions. The
opinion declares that there was nc
3 excuse for the advertising of the
: products of d. M. Osborne ant
, Company as Independent for two
: years after it had virtually entered
: the International Harvester Com
pany This advertising was to In
duce purchasers, the court finds
from those who were opposed to buy
ing from the combination.
The other act censured by the Gle
cision was the manner in which tn
five original concerns were turnet
: over to the international company b
:, William C. Lane, a New York banke
who contended that he had pur
chased the properties.
"The court is clearly of the opin
ion," the decision reads, that tn
IT process by which it was made to ap
+ pear that the properties were sol
" 10 Lane was merely colorado
l. The court holds, however, that tn
s. property turned in to the Information
i, al company was greater than til
a stock issued for 1t, and that the cas-
q involves no question of overcapltal'
d zation.
What is Unlawful.
d eve think 1t may be laid down q
If general rule that if companie
e could not make legal contract q
in to prices or as to collateral Sc
N vices, they could not legally unit
,e and as the companies named did
at effect unite, the sole question is as
r whether they could have agreed c
n- prices, and what collateral service
they would render when their cor
l. panies were all prosperous. and thu
n Jointly controlled 80 to S5 per ce
s. of the business in that line in Il
United States. We think they cou
IN not have made such an agreement.
n. 'If the five companies which for1
I'd ed the International had been SIN:
and their combination had been {
sential to enable them to compe
with large corporations in the sal
line, then their uniting would, in t
light of reason, not have been in
N straint of trade, but in the furth
ance of it; but when they constitut
-n the largest manufacturers of tn
w articles in America, if not in I
world, and held jointly about 80
S5 per cent of the trade, and two
least of the companies forming
combination were prosperous, th
.or combining was, when similarly vi,
ed ed. as unreasonable restraint
10, trade"
q. Formation of the Trust.
on- The decision reviews the history
TEL Continued en- page 8.