The evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1914-1922, 1914-08-12

supptessing all competition betwecn
the W. original companies was In
restraint OF trade as prohibited In tn
nrst section OF the Sherman law ana
Il tended TO monopolize within the
meaning OF the second section OF the
same law. and this restraint and this
monopoly we're the direct and imme-
date effect OF the consolidation, and
were not Incidental and uncertain in
their effect.
W conclude. hat the Interim.
tional Harvester company was from
the beginning In violation OF the nrst
and second sections OF the Sherman
law, and that this condition was ac-
centuated oy the reorganization of
the America company and by the cub
sequent acquisitions OF competing
plants, and that all the defendants
sehsidiary companies became from
time TO time parties TO the Illegal
combination. and the defendant com
panies are combined TO monopolizc a
part Of tho Interstate and foreign
trade.
1T will, therefore. be ordered that
the entire combination and monopoly
be dissolved. that the defendants
""fN hAh'fN baen w h0tIn TO itNnFa
TO the court "a plan for the dissolu-
ton OF the entire unlawful business
INTO al least three substantially equal.
separate, distinct ana independent
corporations with wholly separate
owners and Stockholders, or IN the
esent this a a IN appealed and this
decree euperceded. then within ninety
days from the nling OF the pr~ocedendo
or mandate from the supreme court.
the defendants shall file such plan.
and In case the defendants fail 10
nle such plan within the time limit,
the court will enNertain an applica-
ton for the appointment Of "A receiver
for all the properties OF the corporate
defendants. and Jurisdiction IL re-
tanned to make such additional de-
Crecs as may become necessary to
secure the final winding up and dis
solution OF the combination and mon
opoly complained Of and as TO costs
History OF Harvester Case.
The suit In which decision WAS
handed down today was nled April
30. 1912. In the federal district CoGrt
at st. Paul In is petition the gov
eminent asked:
That the tit0.0OO.0 eco corporation
DC dissolved on the grouad that II
was "A monopoly In restraint Of trade.
That Iniunctions he tssued TO bar
from Interstate commerce the pro-
ducts OF the International Harvester
company or OF the International
Harvester company OF America, is
selling agency.
That receivers be appointed 10
take charge OF the property and wind
up the business of the defendant, %
the court finds such action compatible
with public interests.
The following CORPORATIONS and in
diViduals were mentioned as defend
ants In the petition;
international Harvester company,
International Harvester company OF
America, International Flax Irvine
company. Wisconsin Steel company.
Wisconsin Lumber company. Illinois
Northern railway, Chicago, West pull
man q Southern Railroad COMPANY.
Cyrus IA. Mccormick, Charles Deer
ing, James Deering, Joh1 j. Ul.ss-
ner. william n. Jones. Harold =. Nc
Cormick, Richard Y. Howe. Edgar A..
Bancroft. wilism J. Louderback.
George r. Baker. Norman u. Ream.
Charles steele. John 4. Chapman, FL
bert "a. Gary. Thomas ID. Jones. John
=. Wilson. Wililanf l.. Saunders and
George W. Perkins.
The chief charges by the govern
ment against the Harvester company
were.
That the company In m-onopoiizins
the sale and manufacture OF harvest
ing machinery had adyarced prices
ito the grave injury Of the farmer
and the general public
That the company controls az least
90 per cen u the trade IN the Untt-
ed States IN harvesters or grain bind
eTs. 10 per rent OF the and
more than so per cent Of the binder
Irvine.
THAT the company had absorbed
competing companies while allowing
those companies sail to advertise as
helng independent. thereby mElead-
ing. decclving and defrauding the
hubble and more enectually Gripping
J existing competitors aud keeping out
new ones"
That the defendants resorted To un-
fair trade methods by attempting 20
induce agents TO handle only their
products.
Ttsat Il bought up patents To per
petuate the mocopoly.
That in organizing the i~nternauon-
nj Harvester company The defendants
planned tn form a monopoly.
That the company bound retail