The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1914-08-12
THREAT OF RECEIVER
IF 1T DOESN'T SUBMIT
A Dissenting Opinion Was
Rendered by Judge
Sanborn

national Harvester Co. to-day was de-
clared to be a monopoly in restraint of
interstate and foreign trade and was or
dared dissolved by majority decision
filed here by Judges Walter !. Smith
of Iowa and w G.. Hook of Kansas in
the United States court. Judge Walter
II. Sanborn of Minnesota dissented. I'm
less the corporation submits to the plan
for dissolution within 90 days the court
will entertain an application for a re.
ceiver.
The majority opinion held that the
international Harvester Co. was from its
organization in 1902 in violation of the
Sherman law. The original corporation,
| formed of five concerns, violated the
| first section Of the Sherman act by re-
lstraining competition among themselves.
| The combined organization also tended
to monopolize trade in contravention of
the second section Of this law.
The decision declares that while the
international Harvester Co. and its sell
ing organization, the International Har-
yester Co. of America, control from so
to s. per cent OF the trade in agricul-
tural implements manufactured by them,
their treatment of smaller competitors
in general has been fair and Just.
The court finds fault with the actions
of the corporation aside from the tech
nical violation OF the Sherman law. for
only two actions. The opinion declares
that there was no excuse for the adver-
tsing of the products of D. M. Osborne |
4 Co. as independent for two years aft /
er it had virtually entered the Interna-
tional Harvester Co. This advertising |
was to induce purchasers, the court finds,
from those who were opposed to buying |
from the combination.
The other act censured by the deci.
sion was the manner in which the five
original concerns were turned over 70 the /
company by William G. L
Lane. New York banker, who contend
ed that he had purchased the proper
ties
"1'he 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
AHb tphIb HblNEs HONtNtfs ifdl Nhc
property turned in to the International
was greater than the stock is
sued for it, and that the case involves
10 question of capitalization.
The court cites portions Of the deci
ZION in the cases of the Standard oil
the American Tobacco com
1any, the DUPONT De Nemours & com :
,any, and other cases as TO what con- 7
titutes the restraint Of trade reason
ble and unreasonable and concludes: !
1--WE think it may be laid down as t
General rule that II companies could not
make legal contract as TO prices or as !
o collateral services, they could not le- a
ally unite, and as the companies named 8
id IN effect unite the sole question is .
S to whether they could have agreed Q
n prices. and what collateral services \
hey would render when their companies t
rere all prosperous, and they jointly e'
so to So per cent. of the bust a
ess in that line in the United States.
We think they could not have made A
lch an agreement. ol
III the five companies which formed N
he international had been small and h
leir combination had been essential TO b.
nable them to compete with large cor y
orations in the same line, then their W
hitting would, in the light of reason, not Il
ave been restraint of trade, but in the OF
lrtherance of it; but when they con-
ituted the largest manufacturers of lat
leir articles in America, il not in the tn
orld, and held jointly about so to So tn
n cent. of the trade, and two at least Sc
the companies forming the eombina-
on were prosperous, their combining
as, when similarly viewed, an unrea-
nable restraint of trade. If the busi- In
SIS of the separate companies combin-
g was unsuccessful, il could be plain
at their combination was reasonable in
ew of the rule OF reason as proclaimed ma
the supreme court, but il is conceded In
at the Mccormick and the Deering to
mpanies had established reasonably we
ccessful and prosperous businesses, so ap
az question is eliminated. by
There is no limit under the American ma
= to which a business may not indie
ndently grow, and even combination pei
two or more businesses if it does not sol
reasonably restrain trade, is not ile- tor
!, but il is the combination which un- of
lsonably restraius trade that is ille- OF
!. and if the parties in controversy Ra
We So or IS per cent. Of the American Gle
siness. and the combination OF the r.
npanies all competition is eliminated Ian
ween the constituent parts of the
then il j. in restraint Of
de within the meaning Of the statutes
der all Of the decisions" WI