The Mankato free press., 1914-08-14

the combination.
The other act censured by h the
decision was the manner In which
the five original concerns were
turned over to the International
company by William c. Lane, a
New York banker. who contended
that he had purchased the proper
ties. .s.- .,g- ....
The court Is clearly of the opin-
ion," the decision reads, that the
process by which 1t was made to
appear that the properties were sold
TO Lane was merely colorado"
The court holds, however, that the
property turned In to the Interna-
tional company was greater than the
stock issued for 1t, and that the
case involves no question Of over
capitalization.
The court cites portions OF the
decision in the cases or the Stan
dard Oil company. the American
Tobacco company, Dupont De
Nemours Co. and other cases
as. TO what constitutes. the restraint
Of trade, reasonable and unreason-
able.
History Of Harvesting Concerns.
The decision reviews the history
OF the manufacture of harvesting
implements in the United States,
asserting that prior to the organiza-
tion OF the International Harvester
company the principal manufacturers
OF harvesting implements In the
United States were:
The Mccormick Harvesting Ma
chine company OF Chicago, founded
in about 1S49.
D. VI. Osborne & Co. Of Auburn,
y. Y. founded about 1860.
The Warder, Bushnell & Glessner
company OF Springfield, Ohio, found
ed about 1869.
The Deering Harvester company
OF Chicago. founded about 1875.
The Milwaukee Harvester company
OF Milwaukee
The Plano Manufacturing company
II West Pullman, Ill.
According to the decision, the ef-
forts to combine these concerns be
gan on June "a, 1902, when T.
ID. Middlekauff secured an option
on the stock and plant OF the Mil
waukee Harvester company for s3.-
l23.6s1. "He did this" the decision
says. in fact as agent, though it
does not clearly appear who his
principal was, whether J. p. Nor
gan & Co, George ". Perkins, or
the Mccormick Harvesting Machine
company. He did Il, however, at
the direct instance OF the McCor-
mick Harvesting Machine company,
but whether he was acting as prin-
cipal or agent Is left in some slight
doubt. ~ go .."H
Total Capital, s12o,ooo,ooo.
"on August IL, 1909, the very day
of the organization of the Interna-
tional Harvester company with a
total capital Of s120, 100000. Mr.
Lane appeared before the board of
directors and offered 20 sell the
Milwaukee harvester company plant
as a going concern, including its
bills receivable, and the plants of
the Mccormick Harvesting Machine
company, the Deering Harvester com
pany, the Piano Manufacturing com
pany, and the warder, Bushnell &
Glessner company, and to furnish
s60.000.o00 OF working capital to
be represented by accounts and bills
receivable OF the Mccormick Harvest
ing Machine company. the Deering
Harvester company, and the Plano
Manufacturing company. or in cash.
for S120,000,0O6c of the capital stock
OF the company and on August 10.
1902. this proposition was accepted.
The property turned In was OF
greater value than the stock issued
for 1t. This case therefore, involves
no question of overtapitalization."
Conclusions Of the Court.
we conclude, that the Interna-
tionai Harvester company was from
the beginning in violation OF the
first and second sections OF the Sher-
man law, and that this condition
was accentuated by the reorganiza-
ton of"tfie American company and
by the Subsequent acquisitions OF
competing plants, and that all the
Defendants subsidiary companies be-
came from time to time parties to
fhe illegal combination, and the de.
fendant COMPANIES are combined to
inon6polize a part OF the interstate
and, foreign trade &c "
r"ft anl, Therefore, be ordered that
the .entife combination and monopoly
be dissolved, that the defendants
have ninety days IN which TO re
port TO The court a plan for the
dissolution sof the entire unlawful
busfiess INTO az least three sub
stantiaily equal, separate. distinc,
and independent corporations with
wholly separate owners and stock
holders, or IN the event this case
is appealed and this decree super
ceded. then within ninety days from
the fling or the procedendo or man
date from the supreme court. the
defendants shall file such plan, and
in case the defendants fail to file
such plan within the time limit
the court win entertain an appli
= - a. /.