The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1914-08-12
international Harvester
Company Declared Trust
and Ordered Dissolved

business conduct of the company
towards its competitors and the public
mas been honorable, clean and fair.
Some petty dishOneSties we're tracked
in at the start, mostly by su~bordinates
who had been in the service of the old
companies, but they were soon gotten
rid of. In this connection it should
also be said hat specific charges OF
misconduct were made in the govern
ment's petition which found no war
rant whatever in the proof. They
were of such a character and there
was so much of them, apparently with
out foundation that the case is ex-
ceptfonal in that character"
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
give insufficient consideration to the
trade conduct of the defendants at the
time this suit was commenced in April
1912. and for seven years before that
date, and then were not either so do
ing or threatening so to do.
"ConCeding but not admitting. that
If the combination of 1902 and 1908
had been challenged in 1903 or 1904
before the actual effect of the conduct
OF its business by the defendants upon
interstate n foreign trades had been
demonstrated by the actual trial of
1t from 1905 to 1912, a 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 a law are pre-
sumed to do so, yet the demonstra-
tlon by the actual trial which the evil
dence seems to me to present that at
the time this suit was commenced the
endan were, and for at least
seven years before that time had bee l.,
conducting the business of the Inter-
national Harvester Co. and their busi-
ness without unduly restraining or
n~ionopolizing Interstate or foreign
trade, ought to be and in my mind
must, far outweigh that questionable
presumption. This alleged presumption
never seemed we'll founded or reason
able to me and now that the rule of
reason must be applied to the inter-
probation of the antitrust law and to
Its application to the facts of each
particular case as well as the other
laws and facts of other cases, I think
this alleged presumption should be
deemed functus officio.
THE controlling issue in this case
Is not what combination or monopoly
was made in 1902, 1903 or 1904, nor
whether or not that combination was
Vlolat1Ve of the antitrust law. 1t Is,
were the defendants in 1912 doing or
threatening to do acts which so I'M
reasonably restrained or monopolized
interests or foreign trade that it is. the
duty of the court of equity to enjoin
and prevent their future performance?
Sections 1 and 2 Of the antitrust
ln TY u 49,
m~onopolies and undue restraint IF
interstate or foreign trade and pre-
scribe punishment by fine or imprison-
ment, or both, for any violation there
Of. and section 725 of the revised
statutes bars any prosecution under
these acts for such violation three
years after they are committed. If,
therefore, a combination or monopoly
in unreasonable restraint of trade was
made in 1902, 1908. or 1904, the pro-
ceedings to punish for the making
thereof were barred many years before
this suit was commenced.
Section 4 of the act gives jurisdic-
ton to this court to prevent and re-
strain violations of this act but 1t
grants this court no power to punish
past violations thereof. This suit Is
not a proceeding to punish the defend
ants for deeds done in the past. It is
a suit in equity under section 4 to
prevent and restrain future violations
of the antitrust law. It looks to the
future, not to the pas, and this court
is not only without jurisdiction to
punish defendants for past violations
of this law but persons who at some
past time combined to u~nreasonably
restrain Or monopolize interstate or
International trade were not thereby
6aYnriynH anP 81 hnfr - nrI,+ &hano 49,. -
now to conduct such trade In obedience
to the law.
The particular facts proved in this
ase not only fail to show
that the defendants were unduly or
unreasonably restraining or attempt
ing to m~onopolize interstate or 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 declares that the