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

That the company in monopolizing
the sale and manufacture of harvest
ing machinery had advanced prices to
the grave injury of the farmer and
the general public"
That the company controls at least
80 per cent. of the trade in the United
Estates in haryesters or grain binders,
7 rs per cent. of the mowers, and more
than so per cent. of the binder twine
That the company had absorbed COM
peting companies while allowing these
companies still to advertise as being
| independent thereby misleading, de-
ceiving and defrauding the public and
more effectually crippling existing
competitors and keeping out new
| ones"
That the defendants resorted to un-
fair trade methods by attempting to
4 induce agents to handle only their
| products.
That it bought up patents to perpet-
uate the monopoly.
That in organizing the International
| Harvester Company the defendants
| planned to form a monopoly.
That the company bound retail deal
ers by contract not to sell the products
of other manufacturers.
That the Harvester Company receiv-
ed iron, steer and lumber from the
Wisconsin Steel Co. and the Wisconsin
Lumber Co.. subsidiaries, which were
used to eliminate competition
That the company used railroads I'M
der its control to obtain preference
from connecting roads.
The international Harvester Com
pany was organized in New Jersey in
l902. Prior to that time, the govern
ment declared, there We're ten or
| twelve establishments competing in
the manufacture and sale of harvest
ing implements.
The alleged trust was formed
through the combination of the Me-
Cormick Harvesting Machine Co. of
Ill, the Deering Co.. of Illinois, the
Plano Manufacturing Co. of Ill, Wad
DER, Bushnell & Glessner Company of
ONO and the Milwaukee Harvester
Company
Inc company was Incorporated in
New Jersey with a capital stock Or
iginally of s120,000,000. The control Of
the capital stock was placed In the
hands of three voting trustees. Cvr,s
III. Mccormick, Charles Deering and
George w. Perkins, who issued stoo,,
trust certificates to the persons act,,.
ally owning the stocks.
Judge Hook, concurring. saws.
The International Harvester Conn
pany was created by COMBINING Ave
, great competing companies which con-
/ .ioiiea more than eighty per cent. of
the trade in necessary farm imn,e-
cfiI
stantlal dominance.
Ihat is the controlling fact; all
else is detail.
1t may be, as is said, that there is a
growing recognition of the need OF
Siedt concentrated resources fol
trace and commerce But that is moi
the Sherman Act.
V "A statute must be taken by tby
courts as a true estimate of the pre-.
+ ponderance of public opinion. It i.
q not for them to question whether that
n opinion was rightly weighed and in.
I, terpreted.
1t is but just though to make Il
G plain that in the main the business
4 conduct OF the company toward it.
, competitors and the public has beer
: honorable, clean and fair"
n Judge Sanborn, in dissenting said:
Z The controlling issue in this case i:
I not what combination or monopol,
was made in 1902 1903 or 1904, MOI
whether that combination violated tn.
antitrust law 1t is were the de
PENDANTS in 1912 doing or threatenint
), to do acts unreasonably restraining o.
:. nonopoliZing inter- state or foreign
- trade.
Sections one and two of the Anti
9 Trust Law forbid combinations ant
monopolies in undue restraint of inter
:, state or foreign trade. Section 725 o
;, the revised statutes bars prosecution
;, under these acts for such violation
+, three years after they are committed
IT, therefore. a combination or monop
q oily was made in 1902, 1903 or 1904, tn,
, proceedings to punish was barred
many years before this suit was com
> menced.
Y "The evidence adduced in this cas-,
e not only fails to show that the de
O PENDANTS were unreasonably restrain
n ing or attempting to monopolize inter
O state or foreign trade, or threatening
|, to do so at the time this suit was com.
t menced and for seven years befor,
e | lIdl lilllc, DuL lliCy tSldDllSu the CON
e verse"
S Judge Sanborn points out that TIL,
y Anti-trus Law is resurrection of tn,
= ancient English rule of public policy
e He insists that it does not forbid al
h restraint or restrictions of competi
i tion but only those which are unrea.
, sonably injurious to the public. HI
n goes on:
r THE facts recited seem to me to es.
: tablish the conclusion that during tn,
i ten years of the operation of the In.
ternational Harvester Company
e neither it nor the defendants were
nor are they, drawing to 1t its COM
: petitors' share of the interstate tradv
in harvesting machinery or excluding
: them therefrom, but that on the othel
; hand the International Company's pro.
portion Of this trade has been decreas-
ing and that Of its competitors in
creasing.
1.-The weight of the evidence of the