Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1914-08-12
HARVESTER TRUST
MUST BE DISSOLVED
United States Court Declares Farm Machinery
Concern is Combination in Restraint of
Trade...Given Ninety Days in Which
to Dissolve or Go Into Hands
of Receivers.

Company, of Springfield, O.. founded
about 1869.
The Deering Harvester Company, Of
Chicago. founded about 1875.
The Milwaukee Harvester Company
of Milwaukee.
The Plano Manufacturing Company.
of West Pullman, III.
Combination Started in 1902.
According TO the decision, the efforts
to combine these concerns began on
June "A. 1902 when T. d. Miidlekaun
secured an option on the stock and
plant OF the Milwaukee Harvester
Co, for s3,i23.691. He did this" the
decision says. lin fact as agent. tho 1t
does not clearly appear who his prin-
cipal was. whether J. P. Morgan &
Co, George W. Perkins. or the Nc
Cornick Harvester Machine Company.
He did it however, at the direct in
stance of the Mccormick Harvesting
Machine Company. but whether he was
acting as principal or agent is left in
some slight doubt.
"On June %, 1902. Mr. Mfddlekauff
went to New York with a letter from
an officer Of the Mccormick Company.
authorizing him 10 assign mis- option 10
J. P. Morgan & Co. of which Geor ge
one they might designate, and rec;tins
that the option had been obtained for
US
ON Aug. II. 1902 new contract
. was made for the purchase of the Mil
waulee Harvester plant by Mr.. Middle
kauf and on the same Gay ne assigned
his contract to Mr.. William G Lane
a New York banker, and then president
ne the Stand
Sold to Dummy.
in July. 1902 the representatives of
the Mccormick, Deering. Wardner
Bus.lell and Glessner and the Plano
companies We're all in New York. but
stopping at different hotels, and ,ot
seeing one another. They were III
seeing, however, Mr.. George W. Per
kins.
On July IS. 1902. they met and gave
separate contracts to William 9.
Lane 10 sell all their tangible property
and specified portions Of their bills re-
ceivable. These agreements all con-
tanned recital that the purchaser. up
on his acquisition Of the property, in
tended to transfer the same TO q. cor
pora.;on 70 be organized under the lans
of Illinois or some of the states called
the Purchasing Company. 1t was in
each case. except that of the Warder,
BusheN & Glessne- Company. stipulat
ed that the entire purchase price be
paid and fully paid non-assessabl BILE
stock of the purchasing company.
Trade Retarded.
ut is contended by the government
that the international used its prior
nopoly OF the old lines to impose
its new lines upon dealers and it In
Guides this among numerous charges
of oppression upon purchasers.
While the evidence shows some in
stances of attempted oppression OF the
American trade by the International
and the American companies. such
cases are sporadic, and in general their
treatment of their smaller competitors
has been fair and just, and If the Inter
national and American com panies were
not in themselves unlawful there is
nothing IN the history OF the expand
] ing of the lines of manufacture. so as
to make an all-the- year-around bust
ness. that could be condemned
"The real question is whether the
combination OF the companies was
Illegal in their beginning or became
so with the additions subsequently,
made"
was this combination in restraint
of trade? It substantially suppressed
all competition between the five com
panies. and the restraint of coupeti-
ton between combining companies is
as illegal as destruction of COMPETE
ton between them without combining.
1--WE conclude that the international
Harvester Company was from the be-
ginning in violation of the first and
and that this condition was accentu-
ated by the reorganization of the
America Company and by the subse-
quent acquisitions Of competing plants
and that all the defendants subsidiary
companies became from time to time
parties to the illegal combination. and
the defendant companies are combined
to monopolize a Part Of the interstate
and foreign trade
/ Dissolution Ordered.
TT 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 a plan for the dissolution Of the
entire unlawful business into at least
three substantially equal separate. dis
tinct and independent corporations
with wholly separate owners and stock
holders, or in the event this case is ap-
pealed and this decree superseded, Their
within ninety days from the fling Of
the procedendo Or mandate from the
supreme court, the defendants shall file
such plan, and in case the defendants
fail to file such plan within the time
limit. the court will entertain an ap.
plication for the appointment of a re-
ceiver for all the properties Of the cor
porate defendants, and jurisdiction !!
, retained to make such additional de.
,, crees as may become necessary to Sc
cure the final winding up and disco