Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1914-08-12

the trade in agricultural implements
manufactured by them. their treat
ment of smaller competitors in general
has been fair and just.
Finds Fault With Actions
The court finds fault with the ac-
tions of the corporation, aside from
the technical violation of the Sher-
man law, for only two actions. The
opinion declares that there was no
excuse for the advertising of the prod
ucts of D. NJ. Osborne & Co. as inde-
pendent for two years after Ii had
virtually entered the international
Harvester Company. This advertising
was to induce purchasers. the court
finds from those who we're opposed
to buying from the combination.
The other act censured by the de-
ctsion was the manner in which the
FIVE original concerns were turned over
to the international company by Will
liam c. Lane, a New York banker,
who contended that he had purchased
the properties.
The court is clearly of the opinion"
the decision reads, that the process
by which it was made to appear that
the properties were sold to Lane was
merely colorable.'
The court holds however. that the
property turned in to the Inter
national company was greater than
the stock issued for it. and that the
case involves no question OF over
capitalization.
Other Cases Cited
The court cites portions of the de-
cision in the cases of the Standard Oil
Company the American Tobacco Com
pany. the Du Pont-De Nemours Com
pany and other cases as to what con-
stitutes the restraint of trade, reason
able and unreasonable, and concludes:
We think 1t may be laid down as a
general rule that if companies could
not make a 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 so
to IS per cent. of the business in that
lien in the United States. We think
they could not have made such an
agreement.
IF the five companies which formed
the International had been small and
their combination had been essential
to enable them to compete with large
corporations in the same line, then
their uniting would, in the light of
reason, not have been in restraint of
trade, but in the furtherance of it:
but when they constituted the largest
manufacturers of their articles in
America, If not in the world. and held
jointly about so to SIS per cent. of the
trade, and two at least of the COM
panies forming the combination were
prosperous, their combining was. when
similarly viewed, an unreasonable re-
strain of trade. If the business of the
separate companies combining was
unsuccessful it could be plain that
their combination was reasonable in
view of the rule of reason as pro-
claimed by the Supreme Court, but il
is conceded that the Mccormick and
the Deering companies had established
reasonably successful and prosperous
businesses so that question is elimi-
mated.
Legal Business Shown
There is no limit under the Ameri-
can law to which a business may not
independently grow, and even a COM
blnation of two or more businesses. if
II does not unreasonably restrain trade.
Is not Illegal; but II is the combination
which unreasonably restraints trade
that is Illegal. and if the parties in
controversy have so or S5 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
II is In restraint of trade within the