New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-08-13

bination Of two or more businesses If
IL does not unreasonably restrain
trade is rot illegal; but 1t is the com
binstion which unreasonably restrains
trade that is illegal. and if 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 the con-
stituent parts Of the combination, then
it 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 imple-
ments in the United States. asserting
that prior TO the organization Of the
International Harvester Company the
principal manufacturers of harvesting
implements in the United States were:
The Mccormick Harvesting Machine
Company. Of Chicago, founded IN about
1919; D. NJ. Osborne & Co., Of Auburn,
y. Y, founded about 1860; the Warder,
Bushnell & Glessner Company, OF
Springfield. Ohio, founded about 1869
the Deering Harvester Company, OF
Chicago, founded about 1879; the NIL
waukee Harvester Company, OF Mllwau-
kee. and the Plano Manufacturing Com-
pany, Of West Pullman, H.
Efforts Began June "a, 1902.
According to the decision, the efforts
N combine these concerns began on
Jnne "a 1902. when T. d. Middlekautf
secured an option on the stock and
plant of the Milwaukee Harvester Com
many for S3123 SOL. "He did this" the
decision says, Gin fact as agent, though
II does not clearly appear who his prln-
cipal was-whether J. P. Morgan Co.
George w. Perkins or the McCormlck
Harvesting Machine Company. lie diG
IN however. at the direct instance o.
The Mccormick Harvesting nachlne
COMPANY. but whether he was acting as
principal or agent is left IN some siighV
doubt" The decision continues;
"On June %, 1902, Mr.. Mlddlekaun
went TO New York with a letter from
an officer Of the Mccormick company
authorizing him TO assign has option 70
/ p. Morgan d. Co, Of when GeorSe
w Perkins was a member, or 10 any
one they might designate, ana reelt TN
that the option had been ootalheu i'i
US .ooo ..,,. oo,4ract
was made for the purchase OF the ,I ~
waukee Harvester Plant by MI; MN
dlekaufT. and on the same DAY ne as
signed his contract to william =. L .'I.',
a Kew York banker, and then presloeil'
of the Standard Trust Company. 49,
ON July. 1902, the repres9enItaiSI.oe,.'
of the Mccormick, Deerlng' IGilei ;
Bushnell and Glessner ana me L iai ..y
cor,nanies were all in New YORK. DuI
etonning AZ different hotels and not
sooipe one another. They were all
seeing, however, George W. eiH' d,aro
con July 2S, 1902. they met ana CAV CAV
separate contracts to william -. Ls'IiS
10 sell all their tangible properly anu
specified portions Of their oiils reoe''-
able.
COMPANIES Sign Agreement.
"On August II, 1902, the companies
all signed an agreement for the lmme-,
d;ate delivery of their plants ana
property without waiting for any ep-
praisement heretofore stipulated Io.
in each instance.
con August 70, 1902, the very day OF
IN. organization Of the international
Harvester Company, with a total ospl-
TAI Of s120,00O,OO0 Mr.. Lane appeared
before the board Of directors and OF
Tered TO sell the Milwaukee Harvester
Company's plant as a gong concern,
including its bills receivable, and the
plants OF the Mccormick Harvesting
Machine Company, the Deerlng har-
yester Company, the Plano Manutact-
uring Company and the Warder, Bush
nell & Glessner Company, and 70 lur-
nisb SEQ 600 900 Of working capital 70
he represented By accounts and bills
receivable of the Mccormick Harvest
ing Machine Company, the Deerlng
Harvester Company and the PIANO
Manufacturing Company, or IN easn
for $4,000 900 Of the capital stock
OF the company, and on August To-
1902 this proposition was accepted
The property turned in was OF greater
value than the stock issued Tor II.
This case, therefore, involves no qnes-
ton Of overcapitalization.
an ali Mr.. Lane aid in this matter
he was acting upon the suggestion OF
his counsel. lie was compensated, put
there never was any idea upon ms part
that he owned any of the properly
He was a mere conduit, or instrument
tality in the transactions"
"Prior 70 the consolidation the hrst
Eve companies were in fierce competi-
ton for trade. and especially was TINS
true Of the Mccormick and Deerihg
companies. and this competition eH-
tended not only 20 price but to the
granting of expert assistance and nu-
nerous free items with machines. Inc
result of the combination was that All
,bis eompetition at once wholly ceased,
Wa 900. - limitation of agents