The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1914-08-13

UOn extended not only 10 price out
TO the granting of expert assistance,
and numerous free items with ma
chimes. The result of the combine
ton was that all this competition at
once wholly ceased, except within
the limitation of agents commits
sions.
THE defendants claim that the
objects of the organization we're.
First. to build up the foreign trade:
second, by the combination to secure
more capital to enable them to con-
tinue the battle in the foreign mar
ket; third, by enlarging the scope of
the business so as to include other
lines of agricultural implements to
make an all-the-year-around bust
ness. They also claim that 1t was
not the intention to Cypress the do
nestle market, and that they have
not done So"
1T does not appear that since the
combination the foreign trade has
all the combining companies was
S10,400,00 in 1902. and has grown
under the defendants management
to $50,000,00 in 1919. This vast
growth is to the credit of the energy
| III CltGsD lst VI Nv dGlcIIldIlS. IDul
; the growth OF the trade of the com
panies who formed the combination
was at the time of the consolidation
very recent, and the trade was rapid
~ increasing just prior to the com
bination. With the knowledge that
the foreign trade was making such a
remarkable growth at the time of the
consolidation, whether the separate
companies would have increased their
business as much as the defendants
have done, is a mere matter of specu-
lation on which We can venture no
opinion.
ut is claimed that the %consolida-
tion brought sixty millions of avail
able cash to the new company with
which to expand the foreign trade.
This is not true. The government
claims that not more than ten mil
lions of new cash was furnished, but
in no event did it exceed twenty mil
lions.
ut is commended by the government
that the International used its prior
monopoly of the old lines to impose
J its new lines upon dealers and it in
cludes this among numerous charges
OF oppression upon purchasers.
While the evidence shows some in
stances of attempted oppression of
the American trade by the Internal
ional and the American companies,
! such cases are sporadic, and in gen
oral their treatment of their smaller
, competitors has been fair and Just,
and if the International and Ameri-
r ca companies were not in them
selves unlawful there is nothing in
the history of the aynandi0p Df thc
lines of manufacture. so as to make
an all-the-year-aronnd business, tina,
l could be condemned"
judge Sanborn Dissents.
l Judge Sanborn dissenting, says
with profound respect for the judg-
ment OF his court associates, he finds
: himself forced to disagree with them
in his opinion, and in part says:
Z First, because 1t seems to me tC
q give insufficient consideration to the
trade OF the defendants al
the time this suit was commenced
\ before that date.
! In tuls case is not whether or not in
: 1907 or 1909, the defendants OF
thelr predecessors by reason of the
@ pot"eei
hve or more companies made a com
J, plhatlon OF an attempted monopoly
! IN restraint OF trade, but it is wheth.
y er or not ten years afterwards. ir
' l9l2. Wneh me complaint In thi:
!; sum was MED, the international com
:. pany n inc other defendants Were
= Their unduly or ~unreasonably re
straihlng or monopoilzing interstate
or foreign trade, or threatening 81
!; TO DO, and,
slhlrd, because :he evidence II
y ms case mas forced upon my mint
: ueep ana abiding conviction tina
, Tor at least seven years before the
Z commencement OF TINS suit the de
! PENDANTS mad no. heen and ther
= We're not either SO doing or threaten
ing SO to do