The Leon reporter. (Leon, Iowa) 1887-1930, 1914-08-20
International Harvester Co. Held tt
BE Q Trust and Must Dissolve.

y International Harvester Co. Held to
BE q Trust and Must Dissolve.
St. Paul, Mimi, Aug. 12.-The In
ternational Harvester Company to-
day was declared to be monopoly
in restraint of interstate and foreign
trade, and was ordered dissolved by
a majority decision in the United
States district court.
Unless the $140, 100000 corpora
ton submits plan for the dissolution
of the combination into at least three
Independent concerns within 80 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 applica-
ton for the appointment of re-
ceiver for all the properties of the
corporation.
The decision of the court was CIV
en- by Circuit Judge Walter I. 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 it's 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 restraining COM
petition among themselves. The
combined organization also tended to
monopolize trade in contravention OF
the second section of the law.
The decision declares that while
the International Harvester Com
pany and it's selling organization, the
International Harvester Company OF
America, control from 80 to IS per
cent of the trade in agricultural i'm
plements manufactured by them,
their treatment of smaller COMPETE
tors in general has been fair and just.
The court finds fault with the ac-
tons 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
products of D. NJ Osborne and Com
pany as independent for two years
after it had virtually entered the In
ternational Harvester Company. This
advertising was to induce purchas-
ers, the court finds, from those who
we're opposed to buying from the
combination.
The other act censured by the de-
cision was the manner in which the
five original concerns were turned
over to the International Company
by William c. Lane, a New York
banker, who contended that he had
purchased the properties.
I, Sc o11 op1Hy of 1on n
ion." the decision reads, that the
process by which it was made to
appear that the properties were sold
to Lane was merely colorado"
The court holds, however, that the
property turned in to the !nterna-
tional company was greater than the
stock issued for it and that the case
involves no question of over-capital-
ization.
The court cites portions of the de-
cision in the cases. of the Standard
Oil Co., the American Tobacco Co.,
the Du Pont Nemours & Co., and
other cases as to what constitutes the
restraint of trade, reasonable and
unreasonable, and concludes:
Eve think it may be laid down as
q 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 companies 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 COM
panies were all prosperous, and they
Jointly controlled 80 to IS per cent
OF the business in that line in the
United States We think they could
not have made such an agreement.
ut will, therefore, be ordered that
the entire combination and monopoly
be dissolved, that the defendants
have ninety days in which to report
to the court plan for the dissOlu-
ton of the entire unlawful business
into at least three substantially
equal separate, distinct and independ-
ent corporations with wholly separ-
ate owners and stockholders, or in
the event this case is appealed and
this decree superseded, then within
ninety days from the filing of the
procedendo or mandate from the
Supreme Court, the defendants shall
file such plan, and in case the de-
PENDANTS fail to file such plan within
the time limit, the court will en-
terrain an application for the appoint
i ment of receiver for all the, proper
ties Of the corporate defendants, and
jurisdiction is retained to make such
additional DEGREES as may become
necessary to secure the final winding
up and dissolution Of the combina-
ton and monopoly complained of and
as to COSTS
Tv,s1rrn 0or,1Nnupn n&aonv.ka f,-5
Judge Sanborn refers to the claim
of the defendants that the main pur-
pose OF the combination of 1902 and
1903 was to develop the foreign trade
in American harvesting machinery
& and that to do SO required more cap
ital, and concludes by reciting how
this trade was increased and that It
gave additional employment to
American labor at increased wages,
and says, "any receivership or sub
- 49, = = ~ = at