New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-08-13
Federal Judges Declare
Company Monopoly in
Restraint of Trade.
MIST BREAK UP IN
60 DAYS OR APPEAL
necisson To Be Taken to SUI
oromc Coart-Moral Verdict,
Saws @. vs.. Perkins.

g. Paul. Aug. l2-The international
u.-,crtcr Company to-day was de
'i--c6 90 be q monopoly ia restraint Of
! t.-ststc sad foreign trade, and was
.soref dissolved by q majority de-
or .he United states District
'lios. tho SIaOOOoOo0 corporation
s~i.s plan FOR the dissolution Of
n. combination into rt least three M
..-...rr. covccrrs within Hluety days,
case o.. appeal within ninety days
=. tFr issuance OF au appeal mandate
.-,n trc United States supreme Court
IL, decision announces that the court
-,l. entertain an application Tor the
---o-rtmcrt OF receiver for an me
--opertics of the corporation.
Tho decision OF Che court was gwen
. d, Circuit Judge Walter ]. SMITH OF
( IVA vfth which judge William G.
u,sk. of Kansas agreed. and from
1 rbicf Judge Walter A. Sanoorn' OF
Minnesota disscnted.
. The majority opinion neid tnat tne
& r-te~rrtioual Harvester Company was
B 49, ,ts ,r~a~izstiou iu 1902 in viola
.,- ,F Tho sherman law. The org'hal
...---..,-r. formed OF FIVE concerns,
f..f+,r The first section Of the Snef-
90. bv restraining competition
I 800 themselves. The combined or
..-0..r~ also tended 90 monopoh2e
.s. f. c1vtravcrtion OF tho second
ecuor OF .his Jaw.
Z small Competitors Treated Fairly
~. decision declares that while the
, -.tr--rtoral Harvester company ana
al ceiling organization. the lnterha-
-.-.I Harvester Company OF America
,,-.ro' from so 90 So per cent OF the
49,. ,r e~r,cultural implements manu-.
i..t-~el bv them. their treatment OF
,r...er competitors 500 genera. mas oeeh
rlo conn finds fault with the actions
al thC corporation. aside rom 'he
/ .s-.rica1 violation Of the sherman IeN
fo- only two actions. The oplhioh Ge-
; -r.-.. that there was no excuse 1or Jne
s3vertisirC OF the products OF ~ W.
Osborne & Co. as INDEPENDENT IoI ~
gear- after it had virtually entered ~, tne
International Harvester company. rms
ssvertlslng was 10 induce purchasers
+bc court finds, from those VINO
orposed 90 buying from the coInoli'a-
ton. - -. +Lo daci-
80 y.ss the manner In which the hve
.,-.i-al concerns were turned over 10
.t, International company by William
q Tan. "a New York banker, who con-
,,r5sd that he had purchased the prop
critics. s.,.. ,,;,,;o, -
H., seo,sion reads. chat the process oy
,Li~b h was made TO appear that tho
--onerties we're sold TO Lane was mer-
Isl eolorable.'
No Overcapitalization.
The court holds, however that the
--oDertv turned IN 20 the international
sor-rary was greater than the STOCK
;.spe5 for IL, and that the case Involves
M question Of overcapltahZatloh'
Tbs court cites portions Of the oeci,
,ior ia the cases Of the Standard vi
co-rarv. the American Iooacco Solh
rsrv the Du Pont, De Nemours Coih-
ssrv and other cases as 10 WhaU Con
s.itutes the restraint OF trade Iea5Ol
,sis and unreasonable, and eoneIuues
ave think il may be lald down %
ssreraI rule that If companies oou1u
Sot make a legal contract as 20 pIleSSS
~ as TO collateral services. they oOeIu
not legally unite, and as the companlY1s
named did IN effect unite, tue 81
ouestior is as 20 whether Iheg 80
have agreed on prices, ana Whst eo 80,
srsl services they would rehueI 49,
ibeir companies were all PtospeeiIU ,o,,
+ and they Jointly controlled % 70 60 ~ ~
cent Of the business IN tnaI IlHe ~ La
limited States. We think tney 0oUiu
no, have MADE such an agreement.
\ Tf tho FIVE companies when IUIineJ
He Unconditional had been sTnail @Hu
Il .lsir combination had been essehI'9I ~
enable them 20 compete with large -
so-stons IN the same Inc theh NJ
uniting would. in the hight OF reaSon'
rot have been in restraint OF tIaue, -, -
In the furtherance Of IT. put Wnen
Aev constituted the largest hdne
f.cture~s Of their articles IN AIl '.-I.1,,
n rot in the world, and held lolhI!
about so TO IS per cent OF tne tIauv'
and tvo at least Of the companies
forming The combination were Pioo
Porous. their combining was "hen
s.-i'ar1y viewed. an unreasonable re-
s-r,irt of trade. II the business OF
80 sspsrate companies combining was
u,ruecessful. il could be PLAIN tha1
thsir com binaton was reasonable III
view OF the rule Of reason as pro.
claimed bv the Supreme Court, ont II
d conceded that the McCormck an9
Inc Deriar companies had estaolishea
reasonably successful and prosperous
3 businesses' so that question rs eilini-
mated.
No Limit to Size Of Business.
aTbere is no limit under the Amerl-
car law % which business may hoI
Independently grow, and even ooin
----------------