Arizona republican., 1914-08-13

 0F THE l. H. |. COURT ORDER
Held to Be a Monopoly in Restraint of Trade by Majority Opinion of the Eighth United States Cir cult Court
ASSOCIATED PRESS D1sPArcHl

ST. PAUL, Aug 12-The Interna- tional Harvester company today was declared to be monopoly in restraint of interstate and foreign trade and ordered dissolved by a majority de- cision filed here by Judges Smith and Hook in the United States court. Judge Walter H. SanbOrn, dissented
 Unless the corporation submits a plan for dissolution within ninety days, or in case of an appeal. within ninety days from the appeal from the man. date, the court will entertain an appli- cation for receiver.
 Judge Hook, concurring, says:
 The International Harvester con- pany IS not the result of the normal growth or the fair enterprise of an in diVidual, partnership or a corpora = tion. On the contrary. it was created by combining five great competing companies which controlled more than so per cent of the trade in necessary farm implements and it still maintains a substantial dominance That is the controlling fact; all else is detail It may be as is said, that there is a growing reorganization of the need of great concentrated resources for trade and commerce, even though secured by combination of independent, compet- ing concerns. But that is not the Sher- man act. And a statute must be taken by the courts as true estimate of the preponderance of public opinion which calls for legislative expression. It is not for them to question whether that | opinion was rightly weighed or inter- preted, whether it is wise or unwise, or whether it has since changed
 Tt is but just however. to say and to make it plain. that in the main the i business conduct of the company to- wards it's competitors and the public has been honorable, clean and fair Some petty dishOnesties were tracked in at the start. mostly by subordinates who had been in the services of the | old companies, but they were soon got ten rid of. In this connection it should 1 also be said that specific charges of 1 misconduct were made in the govern ments petition which found no war rant whatever in the proof. They were of such 2 character and there was so much of them, apparently without foundation, that the case is exceptional in that particular
 Judge Sanborn, dissenting. says with i profound respect for the judgment of his court associates, he finds himself forced to disagree with them in this opinion. and in part says:
 First because it seems to me to give insufficient consideration to the trade conduct of the defendants at the time this suit was commenced, in Apri
 1912. and for seven years before that date, and then were not either so do- ing or threatening so to do
 "Conceding, but not admitting that if the combination of 1902 and 1903 had
 been challenged in 1902 or 1904 before
 the actual effect of the conduct of its
 business by the defendants upon in
 terstate and foreign trade had beer
 demonstrated bv the actual trial of i'
 from 1905 to 1912, a court might have
 presumed that the defendants wer,
 violating the anti trust law and hay,
 so found on the theory that those wht
 have power to violate a law are pre-
 sumed to do so, vet the demonstra
 tion by the actual trial which the evi dence seems to me to present at thu
 time this suit was commenced the de