Williston graphic. (Williston, Williams County, N.D.) 1895-1919, 1914-08-13
HARVESTING co.
DECLARED TRUST
U. S. DISTRICT COURT ORDERS,
GREAT CORPORATION DIS.
SOLVED


be a monopoly in restraint of inter-
state and foreign trade, and was or
dered dissolved by majority decis-
sion filed here by Judges Smith and
Hook in the United States court.
Judge Walter H. Sanborn, dissented.
Unless the corporation submits q
plan for dissolution within ninety
days, the court will entertain appli-
cation for a receiver. Judge Hook:
demurring, said:
"The International Harvester COM
pany is not the result of the normal
growth or the fail enterprise Of an:
individual, a partnership or corpor-
alton. On the contrary it was Gre
ated by combining five great compel
ing companies which controlled more
than 80 per cent Of the trade in the
necessary farm implements and it still
maintains a substantial dominance.
That is the controlling fact; all else
is detail. It may be, as is said, that
there is a growing recognition Of the
need of the great concentrated re-
sources for trade commerce, even
though secured by combination OF IN.
dependent, competing concerns. But
that is not the Sherman act. And .
statute must be taken by the courts
as true estimate Of the preponder-
ance of public opinion which calls
for legislative expression. It is not
for them to question whether that
opinion was rightly weighed or inter-
preted, whether it is wise or unwise:
or whether it has since changed.
"It is but Just, however. to say and
to make it plain, that in the main the
business conduct of the company to-
wards it's competitors and the pub
]c has been honorable, clean and
fair. Some petty dishonesties we're
tracked in at the start, mostly by su-'
bordinates who had been in the serv-
ice of the old companies, but they
were soon gotten rid of. In this con-
nection it should also be said that
specific charges of misconduct were
made in the governments petition
which found no warrant whatever in
the proof They were of such char
acter and there was SO much of them.
apparently without foundation that
the case is exceptional in that char
acter."
Judge Sanborn dissenting, says with
profound respect for the Judgment OF
his court associates, he finds himself
forced to disagree with them in this
opinion. and in part says:
"First. because it seems to me to.
rive insufficient consideration to the
trade conduct of the defendants at
the time this suit was commenced in
April. 1912. and for seven years be-
fore that date, and then were not
either so doing or threatening so to.
do.
"Conceding but not admitting, that
if the combination Of 1902 and 1903
had been challenged in 1903 or 1904
before the actual effect of the conduct
of its business bv the defendants up
on interstate and foreign trades had
been demonstrated hv the actual trial
of it from 1905 to 1912. court might
have presumed that the defendants
were violating the antitrust law and
have so found on the theory that
those who have power to violate q law
are presumed to do so, vet the DEM
onstration by the actual trial which
the evidence seems TO mo T." present
that at the time this suit was CON-
menced the defendants were. and for
at least seven wears before that time
had been conductiro the business of
tho International Harvester company,
and their business without unduly
restraining or monopolizine interstate
or foreign trade, ought to and in my
mind must. far outweigh that nues--
tionab1e presumption. This alleged
presumption never seemed we'll
founded or reasonable to me and now
that the rule of reason must be ap-
rlied to the INTERPRETATION Of the an.
thrust law and to its application TO-
the facts of each particular case as:
we'll the other laws and facts of 9th
or cases think this alleged presnmD-
ton should be deemed functus officio.
"The controllin" icc''a in this case
is not what cor,hin"";on ~ monopoly
wos made in 1902. 1909 or 1904. nor.
whether or not that combination was
violative Of the antitrust law. It is,
were the defendants in 1912 doing or
threatening to do acts which so uprea-
sonablv restrained or monopolized in
terstate or foreign trade that it is the
dutv of this court of equity to enjoin
and prevent their future perform
ance."
PINNED DOWN