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

ling the prosecution.
the entire combination and monopoly
be dissolved. that the defendants have
ninety days in which to report to the
court plan for the dissolution OF the
entire unlawful business into at least
three substantially equal. separate,
distinct and independent corporations
with wholly separate owners and
stockholders, or in the event this case
is appealed and this decree superced-
ed, then within ninety days from the
filing of the procedendo or mandate
from the supreme court, the defend
ant shall file such plan. and in case
the defendants fail to file such plan
within the time limit, the court will
entertain an application for the ap-
pointment of a receiver for all tho
properties of the corporate defend
ants, and Jurisdiction is retained to
make such additional DEGREES as may
become necessary to secure the final
winding up and dissolution of the
combination and monopoly complained
of and as to costs"
Judge Hook. concurring. SAYS: THE
International Harvester company is
not the result of the normal growth
or the fair enterprise of an individual,
a partnership or a corporation. On
the contrary, it was created by COM
bining five great competing compan-
les which controlled more than so per
cent of the trade in necessary farm
implements, and il still maintains q
substantial dominance. That Is the
controlling fact; all else is detail. 1t
may be, as is said, that there is a
growing recognition OF the need OF
great concentrated resources for trade
and commerce. even though secured
by combination of independent. com
peting concerns. But that Is not the
Sherman act And a statute must be
taken by the courts as 4 true estimate
of the preOonderence of public opinion
which calls for legislative expression.
II is not for them TO question whether
that opinion was weighed or interpret
ed. whether it is wise or Unwise or
whether it mas since changed.
!. 1T is but just, however. to say and
10 make il plain, that in the main the
business conduct OF the company to-
wards its competitors and the public
has been honorable, clean and fair
Some Petty dishonesties were tracked
in at the start. mostly by subordinates
who had been in the service OF the old
companies. but they were soon gotten
rid Of In this connection ii should
also be said that specific charges of
misconduct were made in the govern
ment's petition which found no war
rant whatever in the proof. They were
OF such character and there was so
much Of them, apparently without
foundation, that the case is exception
al in that particular"
Judge Sanborn, dissenting, saws with
profound respect for the Judgment of
mis- court associates, he finds himself
forced to disagree with them in this
opinion, and in part says:
First because il seems 70 me to
give insufficient consideration to the
trade conduct Of the defendants at the
time this suit was commenced, in
April, 1912, and for seven years before
that date, and then were not either so
doing or threatening so to do.
"Conceding but not admitting. that
II the combination of 1902 and 1903
had been challenged in 1903 and 1904
before the actual effect of the conduct
OF its business by the defendants upon
interstate and foreign trade had been
demonstrated by the actual trial of It
from 1905 to 1912, court might have
presumed that the defendants were
violating the antitrust law and have
so found on the theory that those who
have power to violate a law are pre-
sumed to do so, yet the demonstr<
tion by the actual trial which the evil
dence seems to me 10 present that at
/ the time this suit was commenced the
defendants were, and for at least sew
/ en- years before that time had been,
conducting the business of the Inter-
national company and their business
without unduly restraining or monop-
I olizing interstate or foreign trade
ought TO and in my mind must. far
outweigh that questionable presump-
ton. This alleged presumption never
| seemed well founded or reasonable to
me. and now that the rule OF reason
must be applied TO the Interpretation
of the antitrust law and to it's applit
cation TO the fact of each particular
case. / think this alleged presumption
\ should be deemed functus, otficio.
The controlling issue In this case
| Is not what combination or monopoly
was made in 1902. 1903 or 1904. nor
whether or not that combination was
violative OF the antitrust law. II is.
were the defendants in 1912 doing or
\ threatening to do acts which so unrea-
sonably restrained or monopolized in
/ terstate or foreign trade that it is the
/ duty OF this court OF equity to eljain
and prevent their future performance.
: Sections l and OF the antitrust
/ Law fcrbids combinations aud molop-