Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-04-08

from. The hitch between the govern
mcnt aud tine Harvester attorneys now
i, whether tho government would have
Won in tho standard OH II the court had
considered only the prcpouderance Of
Standard OIL in the oil industry.
The combining OF two or more com
pctitivc traders or trade units together
occupying "a prcpondcrant position in
"A gwen Industry, with tho effect OF
supnrcssing competition between them,
constitutes. without more, an undue
restriction Of competition" says tho
government In such case the neccs.
snry eftect being unduiy 10 restrict
connection, the purpose Is 'inmaterial"
The Harvester attorneys take tho
position that during the ton years OF
existence before the snt was brought
no cvil results. but only dement's, nc
crucd TO the public. and that this IN "A
"countcrva!ling circumstance: tina. :.
corporation IL not TO BE- dissolved be
caus" OF it, organization twelve years
ago II II Is today doing no incQuitabIc
thing, Notwithstanding the fact that
there might DC criminal prosecution
for the pcrfcctiuS OF the combination
IN the past.
The Tobacco Decision.
In the tobacco case. Chief Justice
White Maid tho court held the coiclu-
sions OF the lower court against the
Tohnccn Company were Inevitable. mot
because OF tho vast amour, Of prop.
erty aggregated by the oombinat!on."
hut because thc wrongful purpose and
illegal combination had been over
whclminGiy established by other things.
Those things were: First, combination
iinpe!lcd by trade war: second. acts
after the combining indicating design
70 drive competitors out OF business or
TO sell out To the trust. third, ever
present manifestation OF a conscious
N,sr, ,t,I, III ~
troll over raw materials. NTH. buying
ana closing up rival plants: sixth.
stipUlatiuns from sellers Of plants not
10 compete for long periods.
Attorncyc;cnerai Wickersham In hi.
petition enumerated similar list OF
acts 70 establish the "wrongful pur-
pose" in addition to tho size of III.
Harvester Company. These were: First.
monopolizing OF local implement deal
crs through exclusive agency contracts
and contracts terminable at viii: sec
ond. compelling dealers 10 handle It's
new lines as u condition Of handling
It's harvester lines; discrediting com
petitors by statements about their ina
chimes and, credit: reducing prices in
special localities 10 destroy competi-
tors, buying up patents on new IN
vcutions TO perpetuHt" monopoly. and
acquiring switching railways connect
Ing it's plants TO secure unfair division
of rates ON tranlc.
District Court Opinions.
These charges were denied by tho
Harvester Company. and thus Issue.
we're formed. The District Court
passed upon them. Judge smith. ono
Of the judges OF the District Court
said that while the evidence showed
some instances Of attempted oppres-
sion of tn" trade, such cases were
sporadic, aud in general the treatment
Of the smaller competitors had been
fair and Just Judge Hook, who con
Cured with Judge Smith. in condemn
ing tho combination, said in his opinion
that in the main tho business conduct
Of the Harvester Company towards its
competitors and the public had been
honorable, clean and fair. Judge San
born, the remaining Judge. held that
in his opinion the case WAS governed
Ivy the fact that for at least seven years
before the commencement OF the suit,
the company had not been restraining
trade or threatening TO do SO
The government still contends that
these charges are true. II does not,
however. rest Its case upon them, as
was done in the Standard Oil and TO-
them as IL did IN presenting the suit
to the district court Consideration OF
them is asked only in event the court
rejects its 'prcpondcrance" doctrine. It
treats the defcnse. which rests upon the
alleged failure to prove the charges
with sarcasm. and answers with poetry
the plea OF being good trust" II
sums up the defense az being that
this ruler OF the harvester trade.
Hath borne his faculties so meek, hath
been
So clear in his great Office, that his
virtues
VIII plead like angels. trumpet -tongued.
Against the deep damnation OF his taxi
ing off,
Interest in tho Outcome.
The interest in the outcome is far
from being limited to the participants
In the fray. The government contends
that the doctrine advanced by the liar
VeSter Company, namely, that the case
must fail because the combination has
not increased prices. limited produc-
ton, degraded tho quality of the pro-
duet, decreased wages. decreased the
price Of raw materials, or oppressed
competition, would be utterly imprac-
ticable in execution, The public Is In
terested in that statement.
The effect on the administration or
the Federal Trade Commission law par
ticularly is awaited with int.rcst by
business men. IL trade conduct or
practices arc not necessary for the con
viction OF a big combination, the Shcv.
man antitrust law may once more
crowd other trust measures or tho
stage 1t would be by far more ef-
tective weapon than tho Federal Trade
commission act, which deals ONLY with
unfair practices