The Calumet news. [volume] (Calumet, Mich.) 1907-1938, 1914-08-12
s14O, 600, 600 Corporation
Must Submit Plan for DiSSO-
luton Of Combination Into
Three Independent Concerns
TWO ACTS CENSURED
United StatesDistriCt Court tat St.
Paul Today Renders Majority
Decision UnfaVOrabIe to CON-
pany; One Judge Dissents
Chicago, Aug. 12.-The Harvester
case will be taken to tho supreme
court of the United States, ac-
eordins to a statement by Presi-
dent Mccormick.

St Paul, Mimi, Aug. 12.-The In
ternational Harvester Company today
was declared to be monopoly in re-
straint of interstate and foreign trade,
and was ordered dissolved by ma
Jority decision in the United States
district court.
Unless the $140000,000 corporation
submit n plan for the dissolution of
the combination into at least three in
in case of appeal within 90 days, or
in case OF appeal within 80 days of the
issuance of an appeal mandate from
the United States supreme court, the
decision announces that the court will
entertain an application for the ap-
pointment of receiver for all the
properties of the corporation.
The decision of the court was given
by Circuit Judge Walter |. Smith of
Iowa, with which Judge William G.
Hook of Kansas agreed. and from
which Judge Walter A. Sanborn of
Minnesota dissented.
The majority opinion held that the
International Harvester Company was
from its organization in 1902 in viola
tion Of the Sherman law. The original
corporation, formed of five concerns,
violated the first section OF the Sher-
man act by restraining competition
among themselves. The combined or
ganization also tended to monopoliZe
trade in contravention of the second
section of this law.
The decision declares that while the
International Harvester Company and
its selling organization, the Interna-
tional Harvester Company of America,
control from so to So per cent of the
trade in agricultural implements man
ufactured by them, their treatment of
smaller competitors i'm general has
been fair and just.
Condemns Only Two Actions.
The court finds fault with the ac-
tions of the corporation, aside from
the technical violation of the Sherman
law. for only two actions. The opinion
declares that there was no excuse for
the advertising of the products of ID.
NJ. Osborne and Company as indepen-
dent for two years after it had vir-
tually entered the International Har-
vester Company. This advertising was
To induce purchasers, the court finds,
from those who were opposed to buy
Ing from the combination.
The other act censured by the deci-
sion was the manner in which the
hve original concerns were turned
over to the International company by
William G. Lane. New York banker,
who contended that he had purchas-
ed the properties.
The court is clearly of the opinion"
the decision reads, "that the process
by which 1t was made to appear that
the properties were sold to Lane was
merely colorable."
No Over disqualification.
The court holds. however, that the
property turned in to the International
company was greater than the stock
ISSUED for II, and that the case in
wolves no question OF over-capitaliza-
tion.
We think IL may be laid down as n
general rule that II companies could
not make legal contract as to prices
OF as to collateral services. they could
Continued on 3rd Pass, 4th Column.