Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1914-08-13


ton between combining companies Il
al illegal al destruction Of competi.
ton between them without combin.
Ing aS 5 a
I'VE think it may be laid down as
u general rule that II companies
could not make q legal contract as to
prices, or as to collateral services,
they could not legally unite and as
the companies named did In effect
unite. the sole question is as to
whether they could have agreed on
prices and what collateral services
they would render when their com
panies were all prosperous and they
Jointly controlled So to IS per cent of
the business In that line In the Unit
ca States. We think they could not
have made such an agreement. =
1.-THE international Is not only a
great manufacturing company but by
the America company is q great deal
er In agricultural implements in in
terstate and foreign commerce $3.50
In Restraint Of Trade.
Congress has condemned any com
bination in restraint Of either the for
eign or interstate trade, and II the
international Harvester Company was
in restraint of either the interstate OF
foreign it was unlawful. It would
not be lawful to- restrain the inter.
state trade, in order to build up the
foreign trade. The international by
s%uppressing all competition between
the five original companies was in
restraint Of trade Is prohibited In the
first section of the Sherman law and
it tended to m%onopolize within the
mean. ing of the second section Of the
same law, and this restraint and this
monopoly we're the direct AMI i'm
mediate effect of the consolidation
and were not incidental and uncer'
tain in their effect.
Violation From First.
I'VE conclude, that the Interna:
tional Harvester Company was from
the beginning in violation Of the first
and second sections Of the Sherman
law, and that this condition was &C.
eentuated by the reorganization Of
the America company and BY the sub
|sequent acquisitions OF competing
plants, and that ell the defendants
subsidiary companies became fr0Yl
time to time parties to the illegal
combination, and the defendant com.
panies are combined to monopolize a
part Of the interstate and foreign
trade
Vt will, therefore, be ordered that
the entire combination and monopoly
be dissolved, that the defendants
have ninety days In which to report
to the court a plan for the dissolu.
ton of the entire unlawful business
into at least three substantially
equal, separate, distinct and indie.
pendent corporations with wholly sep.
arate owners and stockholders, or in
1.-The event this case Is appealed ans
this decree superseded, then within
ninety days from the. filing of the
procedendo or mandate from the SUI
preme Court, the defendants shall file
such plan, and IN case the defendants
fail to file such plan within the time
limit. the court will entertain an ap
plication for the appointment Of a re-
ceiver for all the properties of the
corporate defendants. and Jurisdiction
is retained to make such additional
DEGREES az may become necessary to
secure the final winding up and dis
solution Of the combination and mon
opoly complained Of and as to COSTS
Judge Hook 7concurring said:
The International Harvester com
pany is not the result Of the normal
growth or the fair enterprise Of an
Individual, . ,partnership or q corpo
ration. On the contrary, 1t was ere
ated by combining five great compel
Ing companies which controlled more
than so per cent Of the trade in the
necessary farm implements and II
still maintains q s%ubstahtiat domin'
atce. That fs the controlling fact;
all. else is detail. It may be, as Is
said, that there Is i growing recogni.
ton Of the need OF the great ccncan'
trated resources for trade and com
merce, even though secured by com.
bination Of independent competing
concerns. But that is NOT The Sher.
man act. And a statute must be tax.
| en- Oy Tue COuTlS ~ True cSLlIlldIe
Of the prcponderance Of public opin'
ion which calls for legislative expires.
sion. It is not for them to question
whether that opinion was rightly
weighed or interpreted, whether It is
wise or unwise or whether It has
since changed.
"It is but just however, to say and
to make 1t plain, that in the main
the business conduct 81 the com.
pany towards Its competitors and the
public has been honorable, clean and
fair. Some petty dishonesties we're
tracked in 1t the start, mostly by sub
ordinates who had been in the ser
vice Of the old companies, but they
were soon gotten rid Of: In this con
neetion 1t should also be said that
specified charges Of misconduct were
made In the governments petition
which found no warrant whatever in
the proof. They were Of such a char
acter and there We % much y them