The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1914-08-12

himself forced to disagree with them
in this opinion. and in part. says:
First. because it seems to me to
give insufficient consideration for the
trade conduct Of the defendants at the
time this suit was commenced, In April,
1912, and for seven years before that
date, and then were not either so do
ing or threatening to SO do.
"Conceding, but not admitting. that II
the combination of 1912 and 1913 had
been challenged in 1913 or 1914 before
the actual effect Of the conduct OF its
business by the defendants upon inter-
state and foreign trade had been dem
onstrated by the actual trial Of it from
1906 to 1912 a court might have pre-
sumed that the defendants were violat-
ing the antitrust law and have 80
found on the theory that those who
sumed 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 commences the DEFEND
ants were, and for at least seven Vars
before that time had been. conducting
the business Of the International COM
pany and their business without unduly
restraining or monopolizing interstate
OF foreign trade, ought to. and in my
mind. must, far outweigh that ques-
tiOnable presumption. This alleged
presumption never seemed well found
Gu IC0SOuftOAS " A4AOs 0AAA AAO~ ~AA~s
the rule of reason xnust be applied to
the Interpretation of the antitrust
laws and to it's application to the facts
Of each particular case as well az the
other laws and to the facts OF other
cases, think this alleged presumption
should be deemed functus Officfo."
History OF the Case.
The suit in which decision was
handed down today was filed April
30, 1912, in the federal district court
at st. Paul. In its petition the govern
ment asked:
That the $14o.0o0.o0o corporation be
dissolved on the ground that it was
monopoly in restraint Of trade.
That injunctions be issued to bar
from interstate commerce the pro-
ducts of the International Harvester
company or of the International Har-
yester company of America, its selling
agency.
That receivers he appointed to take
charge of the property and wind up the
business of the defendant, If the court
finds such action compatible with pub
lie interests.
TIL. following corporations and indi-
viduals were mentioned as defendants
in the petitions:
International Harvester company,
International Harvester company OF
America. International Flax Irvine
company, Wisconsin steel company.
Northern railway, Chicago West Pull
man & Southern Railroad company,
cyrus H. Mccormick, Charles Deering,
James Deering, John ]. Glessner,
William H. Jones. Harold +. McCor-
croft, William ]. Louderback. George
F. Baker, Norman B. Ream. Charles
Steele, John A. Chapman. Elbert III.
Gary, Thomas d. Jones, John p. Will
son, William L. Saunders and George
w. Perkins.
The Governments Charges.
The chief charges by the government
against the Harvester Company were:
| That the company in monopoliztn&
the sale and manufacture of harvesting
machinery had advanced prices ito the
grave injury Of the farmer and the gen.
eral public"
! That the company controls at least
80 per cent of the trade in the United
States in harvesters or grain binders
70 per cent of the mowers, and more
| than SO per cent of the binder Irvine.
That the company had absorbed
competing companies while allowing
these companies still to advertise as
being Independent. thereby mislead-
ing, deceiving and defrauding thf
public and more effectually Gripping
existing competitors and keeping out
new ones"
That the dc PENDANTS reso-ted to un.
fair trade methods by attempting t.
induce agents to handle only theil
products.
That it bought up patents to perpet
uate the monopoly.
That in organizing the Internationa
Harvester Company the defendant
planned to form q monopoly.
That the company bound retail deal
/ ers by contract not to sell the products
Of other manufacturers.
That the. Harvester Company re
. lcetved iron. steel and lumber from thu
Wisconsin Steel Co. and the Wisconsin
Lumber Co. subsidiaries, which wer'
! used to eliminate competition.
That the company used railroads un
der its control to obtain preference
from connecting roads.
How Trust Was Forznetl.