Evening star., 1914-08-12
DECISION is RENDERED
BY A DIVIDED BENCH
Judges Smith and Hook Rule
Against the International Com
pany, sanborn Dissenting.
TO APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
President Mccormick Announces
Case Will Be Carried Up as Soon
as Possible to Final
Adjudication.

ST. PAUL, Mimi. August II.
The International Harvester
Company was today declared to
be a monopoly in restraint Of in
terstate and foreign trade and
was ordered dissolved by a ma
jority decision filed here by
Judges Smith and Hook. in the
United States court.
Judge Walter H. Sanborn dis
sented.
Unless the corporation submits
plan for dissolution within
ninety days the court will enter
tain an application for receiver.
Judge Hooks Opinion.
Judge Hook concurring. says:
rne International Harvester Company
is not the result of the normal growth
or the fair enterprise of an individual
a partnership or corporation. 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
II still maintains A substantial dominance
That is the controlling fact; all else is
detail
1t may be, as is said. that there is a
growing recognition of the need of great
concentrated resources for trade and
commerce. even though secured -by-eem-
bination of independent. competing con-
Germs. But that is not the Sherman act.
And a statute must be taken by the
courts as true estimate of the prepon-
derence of public opinion which calls for
legislative expression. 1t is not for them
to question whether that opinion was
rightly weighed or interpreted. whether
II is wise or unwise or whether it has
since changed
''lt is but just. however. to say. and to
make it plain. that in the main the bust
ness conduct Of the company toward its
competitors and the public has been hon
orable, clean and fair. Some petty dis
honesties We're tracked in at the start.
nGsty by subordinates who had been in
the service of the old companies. but they
were soon gotten rid of In this connec-
ton il should be said that specific charges
of misconduct We're made in the govern
ment's petition. which found no warrant
whatever iii the proof They were of such
II character ana tnere was SO much OF
them apparently without foundation that
the case is exceptional in that particular.
Judge Sanborn Dissents.
Judge Sanborn dissenting, says that
with profound respect for the judgment
Of his court associates. he finds himself
forced to disagree with them in this opin-
ion and. in part. says:
FIRST because it SENS to me to give
insufficient consideration to the trade
conduct of the defendants at the time
this suit was commenced-in April 1912
and for seven years before that date.
Second because the crucial issue in
this case Is not whether or not in 1902
or 1903 the defendants or their predeces-
sors by reason of the suppression of com
petition between five or more companies
made combination an attempted
monopoly in restraint of trade hut il is
whether or NOT ten years afterward. in
1912, when the complaint in this suit was
filed. the international company and the
other defendants We're then unduly or
unreasonably restraining or monopolizing
interstate or foreign trade. or threatening
to do. and.
Third. because the evidence In this
case has forced upon my mind the deep
and abiding conviction that for at least
seven years before the commencement of
this suit the defendants had not been. and
then We're not either so doing or threat
ening so to do.
..Conceding but not admitting that If
the combination of 1902 and 1903 had
been challenged in 1:O; or 1904. before
the actual effect OF the conduct of its
business by the defendants upon inter-
state and foreign trade had been demon
strated by the actual trial Of il from
1905 to 1912 a court might have presumed
that the defendants were violating the
antitrust law and have SO found on the
theory that those who have power to Vlo-
late a law are presumed to do so. yet the
demonstration by the actual trial which
the evidence seems to me to present that
at the time this suit was commenced the
defendants We're and for at least seven
years before that time had been. conduct.
ing the business of the international
Company and their business without un-
duly restraining or monopoEzing inter
state or foreign trade. ought TO. and IN
nv mind must far outweigh that ques-
tionable presumption.
Applies Rule of Reason.
This alleged presumption never seemed
well founded or reasonable to me. and
now that the rule OF reason must be ap-
plied to the Interpretation of the anti
trust law and to it's application to the
facts OF each particular case, as well as
the other laws and TO the facts OF other
cases. think this alleged presumption
should be deemed functus officio.
THE controlling issue In this case Ia
not what combination or monopoly was
made in 1902, 1908 or 1904. nor whether
or not that combination was violative OF
the antitrust law. 1t is, were the de-
PENDANTS in 1912 doing or threatening tc
do acts which so unreasonably restrained
or monopolized interstate or foreign trade
that 1t is the duty of this court Of equity
TO enjoin and prevent their future per-
formance?
SECTIONS i and of the anti-trus,
law forbids combinations and monopolies
in undue restraint OF interstate or foreign
trade and prescribes punishment by fine
IContI,nad ~ E,ourtb De