Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1914-08-12

hinatiou OF two or more busineAses IL
A. does not unreasonably Restrain
trade. IS not Illegal. but It is the COM
biuation which unreasonably restraints
trade that is illegal, and II the parties
in controversy have so or So per cent
of the American business. and by the
combination OF the companies all com
petition is eliminated between th1
constituent parts of the combination
then II is in restraint of trade within
the meaning of the statutes under all
OF the decisions"
The decision reviews the history OF
the manufacture OF harvesting nipple
ments in the United States. asserting
that prior to the organization of the
International Harvester company the
nrincipal manufacturers of harvest
ing implements in the United States
were:
The Mccormick Harvesting Machine
company of Chicago. founded In about
Is49
d. VI. Osborne & Co. of Auburn, n.
Y. founded about 1850.
Tn Warder, Bushnell Glessner
Co. of Springfield, Ohio, founded
about 1869.
The Deering Harvester company, OF
Chicago, founded about 1875.
The Milwaukee Harvester Co, OF
Milwaukee.
The Plano Manufacturing Co. OF
West Pullman, Ill.
According to the decision, the Ell
forts to combine these concerns began
on June "a. 1902, when T. d. Middle
kauff secured an option on the stock
and plant of the Milwaukee Harvester
Co. for s3.123,691. 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 W. Perkins. or the
Mccormick Harvesting Machine COM
pany. He did it. however. at the di-
rect instance of the Mccormick Har-
vesting Machine company, but wheth-
er he was acting as principal or agent
is left in some slight doubt.
The court quotes parts of section
1 and of the Sherman law, and as
serts that the statues must be con-
strued in the light of reason. He then
quotes from the decision of the Unit
ted States Supreme Court its decis-
| ion as to the rule of reason in the case
of the United States against the Amer
lean Tobacco Co. and continues:
NO weight is attached, therefore,
| to the means by which the combina-
ton was formed. if the combination
was within the purview of the statute
as created. The fact that this COM
bination took the form of new cor
poration is immateral.
WAS this combination in restraint
of trade? II substantially suppressed
/ all competition between five compa-
MES. and the retire int of competition
/ between combining companies Is as
illegal as destruction of competition
between them without combining.
We think II may be laid down as
general rule that If companies could
not make q legal contract as TO prices,
or as 10 collateral services. they could
not legally unite and as the COM
panies 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 companies were all pros
porous and they jointly controlled so
TO So per cent of the business IN that
line in the United States. We think
| they could not have made such an
agreement.
! Tine international is not only
great manufacturing company but by
| the America company is a great deal
er in agricultural implements in in
terstate and foreign commerce.
Congress has condemned any COM
bination in restraint of either the for
eign or interstate trade, and if the In
ternational Harvester Company was
to- fs,.a rNr-
foreign il was unlawful. 1t would not
be lawful to restrain the interstate
trade. in order TO build up the foreign
trade. The International by suppress
ing all competition between the five
original companies was in restraint of
trade as prohibited in the first section
of the Sherman law and Il tended TO
monopolize within the meaning of the
! second section of the same law, and
this restraint and this monopoly were
the direct and immediate effect Of the
consolidation, and were not incidental
and uncertain in their effect.
f, we conclude, that the international
Harvester Company was from the be
ginning in violation of the first and
! second sections of the Sherman law,
and that this condition was accenturt-
ed by the reorganization of the Amer
lean company and by the subsequent
acquisitions of competing plants. and
that all the defendants subsidiary
companies became from time to time
parties to the illegal combination, and
the defendant companies are combin-
ed TO monopolize a part OF the inter
state and foreign trade.
1T will. therefore, be ordered that