Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1914-08-13

| manufacture of Harvesting machinery
to the manufacture Of all OF the five
classes of agricultural implements
1T is contended by the government
that the International used its prior
monopoly of the old lines to impose
its new lines upon dealers and it in
cludes this among numerous charges
! Of oppression upon purchasers.
! While the evidence shows some
| instances of attempted oppression Of
| the American trade by the Interna-
tional and the America companies,
such cases are sporadic, and in gen.
eral their treatment of their smaller
| competitors has been fair and just
and if the International and America
companies were not in themselves I'M
lawful there is nothing in the history
of the expanding of the lines of manu-
facture, so as to make an all-the- year
around business, that could be con-
| demned.
| "The real question is whether the
| combination of the companies was
illegal in their beginning or became
so with the additions subsequently,
made"
The court quotes parts OF Section
4
1 and Of the Sherman law, and as
serts that the statutes must be con-
strued in the light of reason. He
then quotes from the Lewiston of the
| United States Supreme Court its de-
cision as to the rule of reason in the
case of the United States against. the
American Tobacco Co., and con-
tinues:
mo weight is attached, therefore,
to the means by which the comblna-
| 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 immaterial.
WAS this combination in restraint
of trade? 1t substantially suppressed
all competition between the five COM
panies, and the restraint of COMPETE
ton between combining companies is
as illegal as destruction of competi-
ton between them without combining.
I'VE think It may be laid down as
a general rule that If companies could
not make q legal contract as to prices,
or as to 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 sc
to IS per cent. of the business in
that line in the United States. We
, think they could not have made such
an agreement.
THE International is not only 6
. great manufacturing company but by
, the America company is great deal
er in agricultural implements in in
? terstate and foreign commerce
t Congress has condemned any com
bination in restraint of either the for
f eign or interstate trade, and if thu
r International Harvester Compan,
8 was in restraint of either the inter
a state or foreign it was unlawful.
n would not be lawful to restrain tn
I interstate trade, in order to build VI
= the foreign trade. q The Internationa
e by suppressing all competition be
I tween the five original companie
= was in restraint of trade as prohibited
in the first section of the Sherman
Il law and it tended to monopolize with
4 in the meaning Of the second section
}. of the same law, and this restrain
: and this monopoly were the direc
$ and immediate effect of the consolida
o ton, and were not incidental and I'm
: certain in their effect.
d I'VE conclude, that the Interna
t tional Harvester Company was from
t the beginning in violation of the frs
= and second sections of the Sherman
n law. and that this condition was &C
e centuated by the reorganization o
:, the America company and blythe sub
seauent acquisitions of COMPETING
e plants, and that all the defendants
= subsidiary companies became fror
+ time to time parties to the illega
e combination and the defendant com
: panies are combined to monopolize
| part of the interstate and foreigl
t trade.
: TT will therefore be ordered tina
s the entire combination and monopol
g be dissolved, that the defendants hav
: ninety days in which to report t
Q the court a plan for the dissolution
of the entire unlawful business int
). at least three substantially equa
s separate, distinct and Independent
: corporations with wholly separat
n owners and stockholders, or in tn
event this case is appealed and thi
= decree superseded. then within ninet
|, days from the filing of the proceden
|. do or mandate. from the Suprem
Q Court, the defendants shall file sucl
Q plan, and in case the defendants fai
y to file such plan within the time limit
0 the court will entertain an application
1 for the appointment of receiver TO
: all the properties Of the corporate de
t PENDANTS, and jurisdiction Is retained
8 to make such additional DEGREES al
Y may become necessary to secure thu
final winding up and dissolution o
the combination and monopoly com
planned Of and as to costs.
The suit in which decision was hand
: ed down today was filed April 80, 1912
, in the Federal District Court at st
Paul. In its petition the government
asked:
That the s14o,0oO,ooo corporation be